[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30129-30132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15155]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 30129]]



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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its 
emergency planning regulations. This amendment allows greater 
flexibility in the licensee's emergency preparedness training 
activities in the 2-year period between biennial full-participation 
exercises. The amendment preserves the requirement that each licensee, 
at each site, conduct an emergency preparedness exercise biennially, 
with full participation by State and local governments that are within 
the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ); reduces the 
required frequency of exercising the licensee's onsite emergency plan 
from annual to biennial; requires licensees to ensure that adequate 
emergency response capabilities are maintained between biennial 
exercises by conducting drills, at least one of which must involve some 
of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency 
response capabilities; and requires licensees to continue enabling 
State and local governments that are in the plume exposure pathway 
emergency planning zones (EPZs) to participate in drills. With this 
amendment, the Commission is granting, in part, a petition for 
rulemaking submitted by the Virginia Electric Power Company on December 
9, 1992 (PRM-50-58).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of 
Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-6534); E-mail MTJ[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NRC received a petition for rulemaking submitted on December 9, 
1992, by the Virginia Electric Power Company that was assigned Docket 
No. PRM-50-58. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend, Section 
IV.F.2., of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, ``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 have 
required each licensee to conduct a biennial full participation 
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 NRC published a notice of receipt for the petition on 
March 4, 1993 (58 FR 12341). A total of 32 comment letters were 
received and considered when developing a proposed rule concerning the 
issues raised by the petitions.
    A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal 
Register on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19002). Public comments were 
requested by July 13, 1995. A total of 18 comment letters were 
received, of which 12 utilities, 2 State emergency management agencies, 
and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) supported the proposed rule 
change. One State emergency management agency and an environmental 
group opposed the proposed rule change. One letter received from a 
State emergency management agency had no comment on the proposed rule 
change.

NRC Response to Public Comments

    The comment letters that were received provided many thought-
provoking and constructive comments. The Commission's evaluation of and 
response to these comments is presented in the following section.
    Issue 1. While the biennial exercise provides the opportunity for 
broad based State and local participation in exercising offsite plans 
and procedures, the annual graded utility exercises enhance the 
biennial exercise process by providing State liaison personnel and 
their utility counterparts the opportunity to remain proficient. A 2-
year gap will lessen proficiency.
    Response. It is clearly not the Commission's intent to lessen the 
proficiency at any level of the emergency planning organization (onsite 
or offsite) with the rule change. The Commission believes that 
interaction and training problems that might arise as a result of 
deleting the annual onsite exercise would be resolved by requiring 
licensees to enable any State or local Government to participate in the 
licensee's drills when requested by the State or local Government. The 
Commission is confident that, if a State governmental emergency 
response agency feels the need to participate in a drill that would 
require specific offsite interaction and decisionmaking capability, the 
licensee would accommodate the State agency's request within the 
framework of the drills that the licensee conducts throughout the 2-
year period between the biennial full participation exercise. In fact, 
a State who was originally against granting the petition for rulemaking 
because of similar concerns stated the following in their comment on 
the proposed rule.

``We were among those initially opposed to the Virginia Electric 
Power Company petition that prompted this rule change, primarily 
because of a perceived potential for a diminution of emergency 
preparedness capability on the part of licensees. However, we 
acknowledge that the compromise embodied in the Commission's 
proposed rule change offers adequate assurance that ongoing licensee 
emergency preparedness activities will continue at a reasonable 
level. Because of the number of licensees and the capacity of the 
State's emergency response organizations, when appropriate (this 
State) will invoke the language of the proposed rule change that 
requires licensees to `* * * 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.' 
''

    Issue 2. County, State, and utility emergency preparedness will 
degrade under a biennial schedule. Mini-drills will not take the place 
of annual

[[Page 30130]]

exercises as now constituted. Further, States have been encouraging 
more Federal exercise participation by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) and NRC. The proposed change would cut back on the 
opportunities to test current personnel and train new personnel.
    Response. The Commission disagrees. The rule change does not 
require ``mini-drills'' to replace annual exercises. The rule change 
does require that ``the licensee shall take actions necessary to ensure 
that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained * * * 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.'' (10 CFR part 50, appendix E, 
IV.F.2.b.)
    Additionally, the opportunity to test and train new personnel is 
provided by requiring that ``Licensees shall enable any State or local 
Government * * * to participate in the licensee's drills.'' (Id at 
IV.F.2.e.)
    Issue 3. There is a need for clarity regarding State and local 
participation in the exercises and drills that are proposed to replace 
the annual NRC graded exercise. At 60 FR 19002; dated April 14, 1995, 
licensees are charged to ``enable'' States and local governments to 
participate in these exercises and drills, but at 60 FR 19006, 
activating all response facilities (Technical Support Center, (TSC); 
Operations Support Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations Facility 
(EOF)) is not necessary. Because State and local governments coordinate 
interaction through the EOF and Media Centers, clarification is 
required. For example, perhaps the utility would be charged with 
exercising the EOF and Media Centers as a part of at least one exercise 
and/or drill each year.
    Response. Based on the extensive coordination and cooperation 
between licensees and State and local governments over the last 15 
years, the Commission is confident that, if a State or local 
governmental emergency response agency felt the need to participate in 
a drill that included interaction at the EOF and Media Centers, the 
licensee would accommodate the request within the framework of the 
drills that the licensee conducts throughout the 2-year period between 
the biennial full participation exercises.
    Issue 4. Rather than eliminating any requirements, it is suggested 
that each site initially be granted a waiver for ``off-year'' 
integrated exercises. The waiver would be effective only as long as an 
acceptable level of emergency response capability is maintained.
    Response. The Commission disagrees. The Commission believes that 
the proposed rule would accomplish the commenter's objective without 
the extensive NRC resources that implementing the commenter's 
suggestion would require.
    Issue 5. The Commission does not appear to have addressed the 
quantitative question about expected turnover rates that would be 
important in determining whether biennial exercises could substantially 
reduce local team skills.
    Response. Please see the response to Issue 1. Additionally, the 
Commission has always been and continues to be committed to the 
principle that there exists ``reasonable assurance that adequate 
protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a 
radiological emergency.'' If, this finding is jeopardized either at the 
State or local governmental level, additional training would be 
warranted and would be provided by participating in the drills the 
licensee conducts between biennial exercises.
    Issue 6. The Commission has not adequately addressed local 
Government comments on the importance of regular exercises for 
improving coordination and communication.
    Response. The Commission did not receive any comments from local 
governments relating to this petition for rulemaking. Nonetheless, the 
Commission is confident that if a local Government wished to improve 
its coordination and communication capabilities, licensees would 
welcome its participation in one or more of the onsite drills that will 
be conducted between the biennial exercises.
    Issue 7. The Commission has not addressed the FEMA concern that 
regular cooperation with offsite teams may play a critical role in 
their preparedness, which may be especially important in view of the 
potential role such teams may play as first responders in actual 
emergencies.
    Response. Prior to publishing the proposed rule, the Commission 
received FEMA's assurance that their concerns with the petition for 
rulemaking had been resolved. Nonetheless, regular cooperation between 
offsite and licensee emergency response teams will be ensured by the 
requirement that licensees enable any state or local Government within 
the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone to participate in 
the licensee's drills upon request.

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 grounds for change for a number of issues associated 
with the current requirement to conduct an emergency plan exercise 
annually. The issues presented by the petitioner follow:
    (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 the program.
    (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 utilized more effectively 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 utilized more effectively 
to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness 
activities.

Commission Response

    The Commission believes that it is important, in light of public 
comment, as well as the discussion provided in the petition, to clarify 
NRC's intent (under the existing rule) that licensees need not conduct 
annual exercises with scenarios that progress to severe core damage or 
result in offsite releases. Historically, these scenarios were used in 
both the biennial full-participation exercise of offsite emergency 
plans and the annual exercise of the licensee's

[[Page 30131]]

onsite emergency plan; 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 can perform during the interval between the biennial 
full participation exercises to maintain adequate EP response 
capabilities and to satisfy the rule.
    Some licensees have availed themselves of the flexibility afforded 
by the IN 87-54 guidance to conduct realistic, interactive ``off-year'' 
training activities that simulate less severe events, such as a minor 
fire, loss of electric power, or 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 accident scenarios in annual exercises of their onsite 
emergency plans.
    Accordingly, the Commission is revising Section IV.F.2.b. of 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix E, to (1) reduce from annual to biennial the 
frequency of exercising the licensee's onsite emergency plan (which may 
be included in the biennial full participation exercise specified in 
IV.F.2.c.) and (2) require licensees to 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. This drill would be conducted 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 
favored the petition for rulemaking but preferred 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.
    The Commission believes that the final rule may result in the 
reallocation and more effective utilization of resources in some 
licensees' emergency preparedness (EP) programs as they further the 
development and maintenance of emergency preparedness capabilities 
during the ``off-year'' periods. However, it is not clear that these 
changes will result in significant overall cost savings. The Commission 
cautions specifically against expectations that the final rule will 
necessarily result in significant reductions in NRC inspection activity 
concerning licensees' ``off-year'' EP maintenance activities. Also, 
licensees will, upon request, submit scenarios for NRC review as may be 
deemed necessary by NRC in support of future inspections.

Conclusion

    Having considered the arguments presented by the petitioner as well 
as evaluating all public comments received, and based on a further 
understanding of the issues involved gained from 14 years of experience 
evaluating licensee emergency preparedness exercises, the Commission 
concludes that (1) the required frequency for exercising 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 to require 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 of 
State and local Government personnel must be preserved.
    The principal functional areas of emergency response include 
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 (Technical Support Center (TSC), 
Operations Support Center (OSC); and the Emergency Operations Facility 
(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 final rule relieves licensees from the current requirement to 
conduct a full formal exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan 
annually, and gives licensees the flexibility to choose the activities 
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 can provide significant benefits to 
some licensees. For example, licensees can eliminate the practice of 
developing scenarios that proceed to severe core damage, offsite 
releases, or to higher emergency classification levels. Licensees will 
have greater opportunity to conduct realistic emergency response 
training with supervised instruction that allows the operating staff to 
consider accident management strategies, diagnose problems, and be 
given credit for actions that would mitigate scenario events.
    This approach is also responsive to public commenters who expressed 
concern about a possible decrease in licensee training and readiness in 
the period between biennial exercises. Under this approach, licensees 
will still be required to conduct emergency response training and 
drills of the onsite emergency response organization, as well as 
provide training opportunities to State and local Government personnel 
during the interval between biennial exercises. The final rule 
completes NRC action in response to PRM-50-58. The final rule grants 
the petitioner's request that the frequency of required onsite 
emergency response plan exercises be reduced from annual to biennial.
    Additionally, 10 CFR 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. In the 1993 
edition, the word ``protection'' was substituted for ``protective 
measures'' in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). This action corrects this paragraph 
to read as follows: ``* * * reasonable assurance that adequate 
protective measures can and will be taken  * * *''

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 10 
CFR part 51, subpart A, that this rule is not a major Federal action 
significantly

[[Page 30132]]

affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore, an 
environmental impact statement is not required. The rule will 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule does not contain a new or amended information 
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(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 final 
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 Street, NW. 
(Lower Level), Washington, DC. 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-
0001; Telephone: (301) 415-6534.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The final rule updates and clarifies the 
emergency planning regulations relating to exercises at nuclear power 
plants. 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), the Commission 
hereby certifies that the final rule 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 final rule clarifies the intent of the existing regulation and 
facilitates greater flexibility in licensees' conduct of ``off-year'' 
emergency response training activities. This action does not seek to 
impose any new or increased requirements in this area. The changes 
permit, but do 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 final rule change.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

    Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire 
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and 
reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, 
reporting and record keeping 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 adopting 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--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 2 years. The exercise may be included in 
the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph 2.c. of 
this 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 activities such 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 
(Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC), and 
the Emergency Operations Facility (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, MD., this 10th day of June, 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-15155 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P