[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19002-19007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9222]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
RIN 3150-AF20
Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and
Preparedness Exercise Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to revise
its emergency planning regulations. The proposed rule would amend the
current regulations governing domestic licensing of production and
utilization facilities, as necessary, to facilitate greater flexibility
in the licensee's emergency preparedness training activities during the
``off-year'' for implementing the current requirement for annual
exercise of the onsite emergency plan which is conducted to evaluate
major portions of licensees' emergency response capabilities. The
proposed amendment would preserve the existing requirement that each
licensee, at each site, exercise biennially with full participation by
States and local governments within the plume exposure pathway
emergency planning zone (EPZ); would reduce from annual to biennial the
required frequency of exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan
(which may be included in the biennial full participation exercise);
would require licensees to ensure that adequate emergency response
capabilities are maintained during the interval between biennial
exercises by conducting drills, including at least one drill involving
a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the
licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities; and would require
licensees to continue enabling State and local governments in plume
exposure pathway EPZs to participate in exercises and in drills in the
interval between the biennial full participation exercises. By
undertaking this rulemaking, the Commission would grant, in part, a
petition for rulemaking submitted by Virginia Electric Power Company on
December 9, 1992.
DATES: The comment period expires July 13, 1995. Comments received
after this date will be considered if practical to do so, but only
those comments received on or before this date can be assured of
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.
Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Maryland, between 7:45
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may
be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street
NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or
WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC
Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The bulletin board may be
accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly
available communications software packages, or directly via Internet.
Background documents on the rulemaking are also available, as
practical, for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board.
If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking
subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll free
number (800) 303-9672. Communication software parameters should be set
as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1).
Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem
can then be accessed by selecting the ``Rules Menu'' option from the
``NRC Main Menu.'' Users will find the ``FedWorld Online User's
Guides'' particularly helpful. Many NRC subsystems and data bases also
have a ``Help/Information Center'' option that is tailored to the
particular subsystem.
The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can also be accessed by a direct dial
phone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339, or by using
Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703) 321-3339 to contact
FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld
menu by selecting the ``Regulatory, Government Administration and State
Systems,'' then selecting ``Regulatory Information Mall.'' At that
point, a menu will be displayed that has an option ``U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' that will take you to the NRC Online main menu.
The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing ``/go nrc''
at a FedWorld command line. If you access NRC from FedWorld's main
menu, you may return to FedWorld by selecting the ``Return to
FedWorld'' option from the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access
NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full
access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the main
FedWorld system.
If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and
menus, including the Rules Menu. Although you will be able to download
documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or
upload files (comments). If you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files
can be accessed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you
will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look).
An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with
descriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP
access. [[Page 19003]]
Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web,
like FTP that mode only provides access for downloading files and does
not display the NRC Rules Menu.
For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis,
Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555,
telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail AXD[email protected].
Single copies of this proposed rulemaking may be obtained by
written request or telefax ((301) 415-2260) from: Distribution
Services, Printing and Mail Services Branch, Office of Administration,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Certain
documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may
be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower
Level), Washington, DC. These same documents may also be viewed and
downloaded electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established
by NRC for this rulemaking as indicated above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Regulation
Development Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852 (301-415-6534).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking submitted by the
Virginia Electric Power Company. The petition was assigned Docket No.
PRM 50-58 on December 16, 1992. The petitioner has requested that the
NRC amend Appendix E, Section IV, F.2., to 10 CFR Part 50, ``Emergency
Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,''
to change the requirement that each site exercise its emergency plan
biennially rather than annually. The petitioner's proposed amendment
would require each licensee to conduct a biennial integrated exercise
of the emergency plan at each site and to take actions necessary to
ensure that its emergency response capability is maintained during the
2-year interval. The petitioner believes that the annual graded
exercise is but one of many indicators designed to provide reasonable
assurance that actions can and will be taken during an emergency
situation that will provide for the health and safety of the public.
The petitioner quotes 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, F.2.,
which states that ``each licensee at each site shall annually exercise
its emergency plan.''1 The petitioner contends that although not
explicitly defined in the rule, this statement has been interpreted
throughout the industry to require that each licensee at each site
annually conduct an integrated exercise which will be evaluated by the
NRC.
\1\This quote does not reflect changes to the regulations that
were made on March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14087), when the word ``onsite''
was added before the words ``emergency plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner states that regulations governing the frequency of
State and local emergency planning exercises have been in place since
1984. These regulations require a biennial exercise of State and local
emergency plans. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the
requirement for an annual integrated exercise for the onsite
organization is inconsistent and should be clarified.
The petitioner contends that emergency preparedness programs
throughout the industry are designed to achieve and maintain an
adequate level of emergency response capability. As defined by NUREG-
0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of
Nuclear Power Plants,'' a joint Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Federal
Emergency Management Agency (NRC/FEMA) report published in November
1980,2 an exercise is an event that tests the integrated
capability and major portions of the basic elements existing within
emergency preparedness plans and organizations. The petitioner
contends, therefore, that an exercise is designed to merely confirm the
level of response. As confirmation, an annual exercise is not necessary
to achieve the underlying intent of the rule which is to attain an
acceptable level of emergency preparedness. The petitioner further
contends that because the annual exercise is the primary mechanism
presently used by the NRC to evaluate readiness, the resources
dedicated to this event are naturally more focused on exercise
performance than on emergency preparedness. The petitioner states that
because of the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program, the
annual graded exercise merely represents a separate means for the NRC
to evaluate the licensee's performance. The petitioner believes that
the graded exercise has, in effect, become an end unto itself.
\2\Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/
or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the response of offsite response
organizations during exercises performed over the past 8 years has
demonstrated that a biennial frequency is sufficient to provide
reasonable assurance of the health and safety of the public. During
this time, there has been no indication of a need to increase the
frequency of the demonstration. The petitioner states further that
although it is recognized that the Commission retained the annual
frequency requirement for licensees when it amended its regulations in
1984 to allow State and local governments to participate in emergency
preparedness exercises every 2 years, the request to amend 10 CFR part
50 is implicitly supported by another part of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The petitioner contends that regulations issued by FEMA at
44 CFR 350.9, by virtue of their stated requirements for offsite
response organizations, recognize that, within the context of those
regulations, the biennial conduct of an exercise is sufficient to
demonstrate that protective measures can be taken in the event of an
accident, thereby providing reasonable assurance of the health and
safety of the public. The petitioner further contends that provisions
for giving the States and local response organizations the opportunity
to participate in the licensee's drill and exercise program could be
easily accommodated independent of the petitioner's proposed rule
change.
The petitioner contends that technological advancements and
applications have served to greatly enhance and automate accident
assessment activities employed during an emergency response for both
the licensee (through the use of Safety Parameter Display System and
dose assessment computer models) and the Federal Government (through
the use of the Emergency Response Data System and RASCAL, a computer
dose assessment model). Improvements to equipment and facilities and
programmatic enhancements within the nuclear emergency preparedness
discipline over the past decade have elevated the level of response
capability throughout the industry. As evidence, the petitioner refers
to the results of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
(SALP) program, a mechanism employed by the NRC to assess, among other
things, emergency preparedness indicators. The petitioner indicates
that during the period between 1980 and 1992, the industry-averaged
SALP rating for emergency [[Page 19004]] preparedness improved from
2.29 to 1.26. The overall average for emergency preparedness SALP
ratings for this 12-year period is 1.61.
The Petitioner
The petitioner is a U.S. commercial nuclear power reactor licensee
for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station,
Units 1 and 2. The petitioner states that emergency planning
regulations, promulgated as a result of the March 1979 accident at
Three Mile Island, govern virtually all aspects of a licensee's
emergency preparedness program and that they have done much to lay the
basis for a structured formal response capability. The petitioner
further states that maintenance and verification of emergency response
capability are accomplished through the programs that ensure adequacy
and effectiveness of plans, procedures, facilities, equipment, response
personnel, and performance demonstrations. The petitioner focuses the
petition on the need to conduct an annual exercise to ensure the
adequacy of the emergency response capability. The petition is based on
the petitioner's belief that the annual exercise is only one of many
indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can
and will be taken during an emergency situation that will protect the
health and safety of the public.
The petitioner believes that the proposed amendment to 10 CFR part
50 would do nothing to undermine the provisions already in place for
ensuring that identified deficiencies resulting from the conduct of
exercise are corrected.
Need for the Suggested Amendments
The petitioner contends the current annual testing requirement of a
licensee's emergency response capability exceeds the threshold needed
for determining the adequacy of the level of response. Therefore, the
adoption of a biennial demonstration frequency would allow an increase
in cost efficiency for industry and the Federal Government. Emergency
preparedness exercises conducted in 1990 and 1991 have averaged a total
of approximately $20,000 per inspection in NRC fees for the Virginia
Electric and Power Company. The petitioner estimates that each exercise
costs approximately $200,000 in resource commitments for the company.
The approximately 450 personnel required for each exercise could be
more effectively utilized in their normal function rather than by
participating in an unneeded test of response capability.
Furthermore, the petitioner states that, based on experience,
approximately 750 staff hours are expended during the development of an
exercise scenario. Emergency planning resources, therefore, could be
more effectively applied to the development and maintenance of
emergency preparedness activities rather than being absorbed by
exercise demonstration activities, such as exercise scenario
development, controller organization preparations, organization impacts
and facility availability (e.g., control room simulator time).
The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is
resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety.
The Petitioner's Suggested Solution
The petitioner requests the NRC amend its regulations governing
domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, as
necessary, to require that each licensee exercise its emergency plan
for each site biennially rather than annually and to otherwise ensure
that its emergency response capability is maintained during the 2-year
interval. The petitioner requests that the NRC modify the existing
regulation to provide greater clarification by explicitly defining the
requirement.
The Petitioner's Suggested Amendments
Petitioner requests that the NRC:
1. Amend Section IV, Paragraph F.2., of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part
50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' to
read as follows: ``Each licensee at each site shall conduct an
integrated exercise every 2 years. The licensee shall take actions
necessary to ensure the emergency response capabilities are maintained
during the 2-year interval.''
2. Amend Section IV, Paragraph F.3.(f), of Appendix E to 10 CFR
Part 50 to read as follows: ``Licensees shall enable any State or local
government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate
in exercises when requested by such State or local government.''
3. Revise Section IV, Paragraph F.2., of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part
50 to provide greater clarification regardless of any action taken to
amend the existing rule. Although not explicitly defined in the
regulation, it has been interpreted throughout the industry that the
regulation requires each licensee to annually conduct an integrated
exercise at each site that will be evaluated by the NRC.
Public Comments
A notice of filing of the petition, Docket No. PRM-50-58, was
published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1993 (58 FR 12341).
Public comments were requested by May 3, 1993. A total of 32 comment
letters were received, of which 17 utilities, 5 State emergency
management agencies and NUMARC supported the petition; while 7 State
emergency management agencies, FEMA, and an environmental group opposed
the petition.
Support of the petition for rulemaking could generally be
characterized by the following public comments:
* * * an annual, graded NRC exercise is but one of many
indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can
be taken in the case of an emergency that are effective to protect
the health and safety of the public.
* * * Power reactor licensee effectiveness in emergency planning
has improved steadily to the point where annual observed exercises
no longer provide a significant benefit let alone a benefit
commensurate with their cost in dollars and diverted resources.
* * * Based on plant management's commitment to emergency
preparedness * * * it is believed that biennial exercising is a
sufficient frequency for determining the adequacy of a licensee's
level of performance. It is well realized that a licensee cannot
ignore emergency preparedness for 20 months and then train and fix
facilities and procedures within 4 months in preparation for an
exercise. Emergency preparedness' complex infrastructure demands a
continual evaluation and maintenance program. Changing to biennial
exercising should not lessen the high level of emergency
preparedness * * *
As an alternate to NRC observation of an annual exercise to
assess a licensee's response capability, the NRC can utilize the
resident inspector during periodic drills to determine if the
licensee's program is effective * * * Annual exercises are typically
constructed to demonstrate everything * * * we are actually
reinforcing the belief by State and local governments that every
emergency at a nuclear power plant will go to general emergency
(required for most annual exercises).
Opposition to the petition for rulemaking could also generally be
characterized by the following public comments:
* * * the exercise is not simply an indicator for NRC evaluation
of the level of emergency preparedness, but also serves as training
and practice for maintaining skills * * * There may be sufficient
turnover or reassignment of plant personnel that two years between
exercises is too long.
Currently, many nuclear utilities are going through a period of
`streamlining' their organizations * * * there will be changes in
utility personnel with assignments as accident responders. A two-
year integrated emergency exercise will not allow personnel
sufficient training in a new role. [[Page 19005]]
Regardless of the individual and collective levels of
proficiency or technical sophistication, we still find exercises
useful in identifying planning, training, or resource needs. In the
past, we have often used utility-only and partial-scale exercises to
train new personnel, test new facilities, or strengthen our
relationship with our nuclear utilities and other agencies. Given
the importance of preparedness to overall nuclear safety, we do not
believe that annual utility exercises pose an excessive burden.
Relaxation of the current requirement is therefore not necessary and
should be denied.
Additionally, FEMA's opposition to the petition in rulemaking
focused on the following points:
The proposed relaxation of the annual exercise requirement to a
biennial frequency should be carefully analyzed to address any
diminution in preparedness that might occur either to onsite or
offsite programs. Our experience in the Radiological Emergency
Preparedness (REP) Program over the last ten years has shown the
great importance of the biennial, FEMA-graded, REP exercises in
achieving meaningful, measurable preparedness for offsite
jurisdictions around nuclear power plants. However, although State
and local emergency plans are meant to minimize health and safety
risks to the public should a radiological accident affect offsite
areas, the licensee's onsite emergency plans are designed not only
to prevent a radiological accident from occurring, but to serve as
the ``first line of defense'' to prevent the accident from posing
offsite health and safety effects.
FEMA disagrees with VEPCO's characterization of the present
annual onsite exercise requirement as being of marginal importance
to safety. A licensee's onsite emergency preparedness is critical
for protecting the public's health and safety, and we believe that
the evaluation of a licensee's performance during annual onsite
exercises is the most effective way to measure the level of a
licensee's preparedness to respond to an emergency situation.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is
resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety. The petitioner
has identified a number of issues associated with the current
requirement to conduct an emergency plan exercise annually as grounds
for change. The issues presented by the petitioner are as follows:
(1) The requirement to conduct an integrated annual exercise is not
clearly defined. Therefore the regulation should be clarified.
(2) The existing regulation, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is
inconsistent with other regulations that govern the frequency of
offsite response organization integrated exercises (i.e., 44 CFR Part
350).
(3) The performance of offsite response organizations during
biennial exercises has confirmed that a biennial frequency is
sufficient to provide the reasonable assurance finding.
(4) The existing regulation, 10 CFR 50.54(t), provides for an
independent review of the adequacy of program implementation.
(5) The existing requirement to conduct an annual exercise is not
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. A biennial
exercise is sufficient to provide an acceptable formal confirmation of
capability.
(6) Reconsideration of the requirement is warranted in light of the
completion and implementation of enhanced emergency preparedness
facilities, the current level of industry proficiency and performance,
and the increased industry sensitivity to emergency preparedness.
(7) Personnel could be more effectively utilized in their normal
professional function rather than by participating in a resource-
intensive integrated test that only serves to confirm the already
existing level of the response capability.
(8) Emergency planning resources could be more effectively utilized
to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness
activities.
Commission Response
The Commission believes that it is important, in light of the
discussion provided in the petition, to make clearer NRC's intent
(under the existing rule) that licensees need not conduct annual
exercises employing scenarios that progress to severe core damage and/
or result in offsite releases. Historically, these scenarios were used
in both the biennial full participation exercise of off-site emergency
plans and the annual exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan.
However, this is no longer necessary for the currently required annual
exercises of the licensee's onsite emergency plan. Information Notice
(IN) 87-54, ``Emergency Response Exercises,'' was issued to clarify NRC
intent in this regard and to provide detailed guidance, specifically on
the types of ``off-year'' training activities that licensees could
perform during the interval between the biennial full participation
exercises to maintain adequate EP response capabilities and satisfy the
rule.
Some licensees have availed themselves of the flexibility afforded
by the IN guidance to conduct realistic, interactive ``off-year''
training activities that simulate less severe events, such as a minor
fire, loss of electric power, and equipment failure, and focus on the
capability of the onsite emergency response organization to diagnose
problems and develop actions to successfully mitigate the scenario
event. However, as noted in the petition, many licensees continue to
employ severe scenarios in annual exercises of their onsite emergency
plans.
Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to modify Section
IV.F.2.b. of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, to reduce from annual to
biennial the required frequency of exercise of the onsite emergency
plan (which may be included in the biennial full participation exercise
specified in IV.F.2.c.), and to require that licensees conduct training
drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of
the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency
response capabilities, during the interval between biennial full
participation exercises to ensure that adequate emergency response
capabilities are maintained. The principal functional areas of
emergency response include activities such as management and
coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective
action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
This approach is consistent with a comment from one State that was
not opposed to the petition but would prefer that some guidelines be
included in Appendix E requiring plant specific internal exercises
during the ``off year'' to ensure plant personnel familiarity with
their response plans rather than the vague expectancy that this
activity will be done. Furthermore, licensees would continue to enable
State and local governments in the plume exposure pathway EPZs to
participate in drills in the interval between exercises, thus
preserving their training opportunities.
In response to FEMA's opposition to this petition for rulemaking,
the Commission notes that although the existing requirements relating
to licensees' off-year EP activities are being modified (most
noticeably by eliminating the need for a full formal exercise of the
licensee's onsite emergency plan in the ``off-years''), the Commission
is confident that there is no diminution of preparedness or increase in
risk to the public. Licensees are specifically required under the
proposed rule to maintain adequate emergency response capabilities
between the biennial full participation exercises, and will now be
conducting realistic drills, including at least one drill involving a
combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's
onsite emergency response [[Page 19006]] capabilities, during that
interval. The principal functional areas of emergency response include
activities such as management and coordination of emergency response,
accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system
repair and corrective actions.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes may result in the
reallocation and more effective utilization of resources within some
licensees' EP programs in order to further the development and
maintenance of emergency preparedness capabilities during the ``off-
year'' periods. It is not clear, however, that these changes will
result in significant overall cost savings. The Commission cautions
specifically against expectations that the proposed changes will
necessarily result in significant reductions in NRC inspection activity
directed to observation and evaluation of licensees' off-year EP
maintenance activities, because they may be modified under the new
rule. Also, licensees will, upon request, submit scenarios for NRC
review in support of future inspections as may be deemed necessary by
NRC.
Summary
After considering the arguments presented by the petitioners and
evaluating all public comments received, and based on the further
understanding of the issues involved gained from 13 years of experience
evaluating licensee emergency preparedness exercises, the Commission
concludes that:
(1) The required frequency for full formal exercise of the
licensee's onsite emergency plan should be reduced from annual to
biennial;
(2) The means by which licensees are expected to train and maintain
their emergency response capabilities and readiness in the 2-year
interval between evaluated exercises should be changed by requiring
licensees to conduct drills, including at least one drill involving a
combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's
onsite emergency response capabilities; and
(3) Opportunities for training by State and local governments
should be preserved.
The principal functional areas of emergency response include
activities such as management and coordination of emergency response,
accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system
repair and corrective actions.
During the specified drills, activation of all of the licensee's
emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, and EOF) would not be
necessary, licensees would have the opportunity to consider accident
management strategies, supervised instruction would be permitted,
operating staff would have the opportunity to resolve problems (success
paths) rather than have controllers intervene, and the drills could
focus on onsite training objectives.
The proposed revisions would relieve licensees from the current
requirement to conduct annually a full formal exercise of the
licensee's onsite emergency plan, and make clear that licensees have
flexibility in choosing the activities that are to be conducted in the
2-year period between biennial full-participation exercises in order to
maintain their emergency response capabilities. Greater flexibility in
the training of the onsite emergency response organization could
provide significant benefits to some licensees. For example, licensees
could eliminate the practice of developing scenarios that proceed to
severe core damage, offsite releases, or to higher emergency
classification levels. Licensees would have greater opportunity to
conduct realistic emergency response training with supervised
instruction that allowed the operating staff to consider accident
management strategies, diagnose problems and be given credit for
actions that would mitigate scenario events (e.g., ``success paths'').
This approach is also responsive to comments from FEMA, some
States, and others who expressed concern about possible decreased
licensee training and readiness in the period between biennial
exercises. Under the proposed approach, licensees will still be
required to conduct emergency response training and drills of the
onsite emergency response organization, and to provide training
opportunities to State and local government personnel during the
interval between biennial exercises.
Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50.47 (a)(1) is being revised in order to
correct a typographical error that appeared in the 1993 edition of
Title 10, Parts 0 to 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Submission of Comments in Electronic Form
Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original
paper copy, a copy of the letter in electronic form on a 5.25 or 3.5
inch computer diskette: IBM PC/DOS or MS/DOS format. Data files should
be provided in WordPerfect format or unformatted ASCII code. The format
and version should be identified on the diskette's external label.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a
major Federal action significantly affecting the qualify of the human
environment; and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not
required. The proposed rule would update and clarify the emergency
planning regulations relating to exercises. It does not involve any
modification to any plant or revise the need for or the standards for
emergency plans. There is no adverse effect on the quality of the
environment. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact on which this determination is based are available for
inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower
Level), Washington, DC 20037.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C 3501 et. seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget approval Number 3150-0011.
Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available
for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L St., NW (Lower
Level), Washington, DC 20037. Single copies of the analysis may be
obtained from Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
Telephone: (301) 415-6534.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would update
and clarify ambiguities in the emergency planning regulations relating
to exercises. Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the
definition of small business in Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632), the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business
Administration in 13 CFR Part 121, or the Commission's Size Standards
published at 56 FR 56671 (November 6, 1991). As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), [[Page 19007]] the
Commission hereby certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Backfit Analysis
The proposed changes are intended to clarify the intent of the
existing rule and facilitate greater flexibility in licensees' conduct
of off-year emergency response training activities; but this action
does not seek to impose any new or increased requirements in this area.
The proposed changes would permit, but not require, licensees to change
their existing emergency plans and procedures to employ scenarios in
off-year training or drills that do not go to severe core damage or
result in offsite exposures. No backfitting is intended or approved in
connection with this proposed rule change.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
2. In Sec. 50.47, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.47 Emergency plans.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no
initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued
unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance
that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of
a radiological emergency. No finding under this section is necessary
for issuance of a renewed nuclear power reactor operating license.
* * * * *
3. Appendix E to part 50 is amended by revising section IV.F.,
paragraphs 2.b., and e. to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 50--Emergency Planning and Preparedness for
Production and Utilization Facilities
* * * * *
IV. Content of Emergency Plans
F. Training
2. * * *
b. Each licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of its
onsite emergency plan every two years. The exercise may be included
in the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph
2.c. of the section. In addition, the licensee shall take actions
necessary to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities
are maintained during the interval between biennial exercises by
conducting drills, including at least one drill involving a
combination of some of the principal functional areas of the
licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities. The principal
functional areas of emergency response include such activities as
management and coordination of emergency response, accident
assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system
repair and corrective actions. During these drills, activation of
all of the licensee's emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, and
EOF) would not be necessary, licensees would have the opportunity to
consider accident management strategies, supervised instruction
would be permitted, operating staff would have the opportunity to
resolve problems (success paths) rather than have controllers
intervene, and the drills could focus on onsite training objectives.
* * * * *
e. Licensees shall enable any State or local government located
within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the
licensee's drills when requested by such State or local government.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April, 1995.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-9222 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P