[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 151 (Monday, August 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44593-44599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[Docket No. PRM-50-79]
Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is republishing its
December 19, 2005 notice (70 FR 75085) denying a petition for
rulemaking submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 co-signers
on September 4, 2002, to correct errors and clarify the NRC's
regulatory position. These changes do not affect the Commission's
denial of the petition. The petition was docketed by the NRC on
September 23, 2002, and was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-79. The petition
requests that the NRC amend its regulations regarding offsite state and
local government emergency plans for nuclear power plants to ensure
that all day care centers and nursery schools in the Emergency Planning
Zone (EPZ) of nuclear power facilities are properly protected in the
event of a radiological emergency.
ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition,
including the petition for rulemaking, public comments received, and
the NRC's letter of denial to the petitioner, may be viewed
electronically on public computers in the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), 01 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a
fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and
downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing in the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the PDR reference staff at (800) 387-4209, (301) 415-
4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In December 1979, the President directed the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), to lead state and local emergency planning and
preparedness activities with respect to jurisdictions in proximity to
nuclear reactors. FEMA has responsibilities under Executive Order
12148, issued on July 15, 1979, to establish federal regulations and
policies and to coordinate civil emergency planning within emergency
preparedness programs. Consequently, FEMA is the lead authority
concerning the direction, recommendations, and determinations with
regard to offsite state and local government radiological emergency
planning efforts necessary for the public health and safety. FEMA sends
its findings to the NRC for final determinations. FEMA implemented
Executive Order 12148 in its regulations outlined in 44 CFR part 350.
Within the framework of authority created by Executive Order 12148,
FEMA also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (58 FR
47966, September 9, 1993) with the NRC to provide acceptance criteria
for and determinations as to whether state and local government
emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented to ensure
public health and safety. FEMA's regulations are further amplified by
FEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School
Children,'' and the ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise
Evaluation Methodology'' (67 FR 20580 dated April 25, 2002).
The Commission's emergency planning regulations for nuclear power
reactors are contained in 10 CFR part 50, specifically Sec. 50.33(g),
50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E. As stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), in order
to issue an initial operating license, the NRC must make a finding
``that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures
can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency'' to
protect the public health and safety. An acceptable way of meeting the
NRC's emergency planning requirements is contained in Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.101, Rev. 4, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear
Power Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML032020276). This guidance
document endorses 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'' (ML040420012;
Addenda: ML021050240), an NRC and FEMA joint guidance document intended
to provide nuclear facility operators and Federal, state, and local
government agencies with acceptance criteria and guidance on the
creation and review of radiological emergency plans. Together, RG
1.101, Rev. 4; and
[[Page 44594]]
NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, provide guidance to licensees and applicants on
methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the Commission's
regulations for emergency response plans and preparedness at nuclear
power reactors.
Emergency plans for all nuclear power reactors are required under
part 50, as amplified by NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 and applicable FEMA
guidance documents, to have specific provisions for all ``special
facility populations,'' which refers not only to pre-schools, nursery
schools, and day care centers, but all kindergarten through twelfth
grade (K-12) students, nursing homes, group homes for physically or
mentally challenged individuals and those who are mobility challenged,
as well as those in correctional facilities. FEMA GM 24, ``Radiological
Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons,'' dated April 5, 1984,
and GM EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' dated November
13, 1986, provide further guidance. These specific plans should, at a
minimum:
Identify the population of such facilities;
Determine and provide protective actions for these
populations;
Establish and maintain notification methods for these
facilities; and
Determine and provide for transportation and relocation.
State and local Emergency Operations Plans and procedures are
initially and periodically evaluated by FEMA. The plans are tested in a
biennial emergency preparedness exercise conducted for each nuclear
power station. If plans or procedures are found to be inadequate, they
must be corrected.
The NRC emergency preparedness regulations are predicated on State
and local governments that participate in emergency planning assuming
overall responsibility for ensuring the performance of off-site
planning and preparedness activities. This predicate is appropriate
since State and local governments have responsibility for public health
and safety, and the authority to take actions to protect the public
during an emergency. A radiological emergency is but one of the hazards
for which a State and its local government entities may prepare.
Emergency response is intended to be primarily local; the planning for
that response must similarly reflect local capabilities, constraints,
organizational relationships, statutes, regulations, and ordinance. The
Commission's emergency preparedness regulations allow a finding of
reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be
taken during a radiological emergency where a State or local government
tasks a non-governmental entity with emergency planning, preparedness,
or response activities responsive to the planning standards of 10 CFR
50.47(b), provided that the overall responsibility for demonstrating,
with reasonable assurance, that adequate protective measures can and
will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency continues to
remain with the State and local governments.
Onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power
plants are evaluated against the planning standards established in 10
CFR 50.47(b) and 44 CFR part 350, as informed by supporting regulatory
guidance and case law. The NRC and FEMA jointly developed NUREG-0654/
FEMA-REP-1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
Plants,'' to provide guidance and acceptance criteria for the
development of licensee and State and local government emergency plans.
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 is incorporated by reference in 44 CFR 350.5 and
the planning standards and related criteria therein are used by FEMA
(now part of DHS) to review, evaluate, and approve State and local
radiological emergency plans and preparedness. FEMA Guidance Memorandum
(GM) EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' identifies
methods acceptable to DHS (previously FEMA) for showing compliance with
the planning standards and evaluation criteria, to the extent they
apply to school children. Methods different from those identified in
GM-EV-2 can be found acceptable if they provide an adequate basis for
FEMA to determine that the planning standards and evaluation criteria
are met. The NRC will then base its licensing decisions, with regard to
offsite emergency planning, on a review of the FEMA findings.
The petition denial references GM-EV-2 in several locations as an
example of existing regulatory guidance that satisfies the intent of
the individual petition requests. However, the Commission recognizes
that DHS may find alternatives, other than those identified in GM-EV-2,
to be acceptable means for meeting the planning standards and the
evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1.
Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to
interested persons through one or more of the following:
Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located
at 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File Area O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland.
Copies of publicly available NRC documents related to this petition can
be viewed electronically on public computers in the PDR. The PDR
reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee.
Rulemaking Web site (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web
site is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Selected documents may be
viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site.
The NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS). The NRC's public
Electronic Reading Room is located at http://www/nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Through this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's
Agencywide Document Access and Management System, which provides text
and image files of NRC's public documents.
NRC Staff Contact (NRC Staff). For single copies of documents not
available in an electronic file format, contact Michael T. Jamgochian,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail
[email protected].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ADAMS NRC staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-50-79)......... X X ML023110466 ...............
Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML023050008 ...............
for Rulemaking (67 FR 66588; Nov. 1, 2002).
Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML040770516 ...............
for Rulemaking; Correction (67 FR 67800;
Nov. 7, 2002)..............................
Public Comments, Part 1 and 2............... X X ML040770480 ...............
Public Comments, Part 2 of 2................ X X ML040770544 ...............
Additional Public Comments.................. ............... X ML041910013 ...............
[[Page 44595]]
Letter of Denial to the Petitioners......... X X ML053260004 ...............
Public Comment (PEMA) on Dec. 19, 2005 FRN.. X X ML060680076 ...............
Public Comment (DHS/FEMA) on Dec. 19, 2005 X X ML060860342 ...............
FRN........................................ ML060730534
REG 1.101, Rev. 4, Emergency Planning and X ............... ML032020276 ...............
Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors
(July 2003)................................
NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1 Criteria for X ............... ML040420012 ...............
Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness
in Support of Nuclear Power Plants
(November 1980)............................
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 Addenda (March X ............... ML021050240 ...............
2002)......................................
Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency X ............... ............... ...............
Management (July 20, 1979).................
MOU Between FEMA and NRC Relating to ............... ............... ............... X
Radiological Emergency Planning and
Preparedness (June 17, 1993)...............
FEMA GM 24, Radiological Emergency ............... ............... ............... X
Preparedness for Handicapped Persons (April
5, 1984)...................................
Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) ............... ............... ............... ...............
Exercise Methodology (66 FR 47526--
September 12, 2001 and 67 FR 20580-April
25, 2002)..................................
FEMA GM EV-2, Protective Actions for School ............... ............... ............... X
Children (November 13, 1986)...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners' Request
This petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79) generally requests that
the NRC establish new rules requiring that emergency planning for day
care centers and nursery schools located in the Emergency Planning Zone
(EPZ) be in clued in the state and local government offsite emergency
plans of all NRC nuclear power facility licensees. More specifically,
the petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations to ensure that
all children attending day care centers and nursery schools within the
EPZ are:
A. Assigned to designated relocation centers established safely
outside of the EPZ.
B. Provided with designated transportation to a relocation center
in the event of an emergency evaluation.
C. Transported in approved child-safety seats that meet state and
federal laws as they pertain to the transportation of children and
infants under 50 pounds in weight or 4 feet 9 inches to height.
The petitioners also request that the following be mandated by NRC
regulations:
D. The creation and maintenance of working rosters of emergency bus
drivers and back-up drivers for day care center and nursery school
evacuation vehicles, and the establishment of a system for notifying
these individuals in the event of a radiological emergency. These
rosters should bed regularly checked and updated, with a designated
back-up driver listed for each vehicle and route.
E. Notification of emergency management officials by individual
preschools as to the details of each institution's radiological
emergency plan.
F. Annual site inspections of day care centers and nursery schools
within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials.
G. Participation of day care centers and nursery schools within the
EPZ in radiological emergency preparedness exercises designed to
determine each institution's state of readiness.
H. Creation of identification cards, school attendance lists, and
fingerprint records for all children who are to be transported to a
relocation center, to ensure no child is left behind or is unable, due
to age, to communicate his or her contact information to emergency
workers.
I. Development by emergency management officials of educational
materials for parents, informing them what will happen to their
children in case of a radiological emergency, and where their children
can be picked up after an emergency evacuation.
J. Stocking of potassium iodide (KI) pills and appropriate
educational materials at all day care centers and nursery schools
within the EPZ.
K. Radiological emergency preparedness training for all day care
center and nursery school employees within the EPZ.
L. Listing of designated relocation centers for day care centers
and nursery schools in area phone directories, so that parents can
quickly and easily find where their children will be sent in case of a
radiological emergency.
M. Establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines to
provide information about radiological emergency plans and procedures
for day care centers and nursery schools within the EPZ.
N. Creation of written scripts for use by the local Emergency Alert
System (EAS) that include information about evacuation plans and
designated relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools.
Public Comments
The NRC received 55 public comment letters relating to this
petition. Twenty-three letters supported granting the petition (mostly
from citizens including three letters with 410 signatures), while 30
letters requested that the petition be denied. Those letters that
supported denial of the petition were primarily from state and local
governmental agencies, FEMA, and licensees. In addition, the NRC
received a letter that discussed KI but did not take a position on the
petition and a letter that strongly supports the development of all-
hazards emergency plans for child day care facilities and nursery
schools throughout the state but did not take a position on the
petition. Subsequent to the December 19, 2005 notice of denial, the NRC
received two letters and an E-mail commenting on errors and potential
mischaracterizations in the published denial.
More specifically;
23 Letters supporting the granting of the petition:
13 Comment letters from citizens supporting the granting of the
petition.
1 Comment letter from a citizens group supporting the granting of
the petition.
4 Comment letters from local governmental agencies or officials
supporting the petition.
3 Comment letters with 410 signatures supporting the petition.
1 Letter from the petitioner supporting the petition. The
petitioner also ``suggests a federal model that mirrors the Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, or Nebraska--* * *'' emergency plans for day
care centers
[[Page 44596]]
and nursery schools, even though those state plans only meet about 30
percent of the elements requested by the petitioner, while meeting FEMA
guidance.
1 Letter from eight local governments that agreed with the concepts
of the petition but had reservations about some of the specific
requests of the petitioners.
30 Letters asking the Commission to deny the petition:
4 Letters from two local governments located near the petitioners,
and from two citizens to deny the petition but suggested that the day
care centers and nursery schools should be responsible for developing
their own emergency plans.
8 Letters from local governmental agencies to deny the petition for
rulemaking because they felt that current regulations are adequate.
12 Letters from State governments including two letters from FEMA
(Headquarters and Region 7) to deny the petition, based on the opinion
that the petitioners' requests are adequately addressed in current
regulations and guidance.
4 Letters from licensees or companies that own nuclear utilities,
to deny the petition.
1 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter to deny the petition.
1 Letter representing six licensees to deny the petition.
1 Letter that discusses KI, but does not take a position on the
petition.
1 Letter from the Special Assistant to the Governor of Pennsylvania
withdrawing an earlier submitted letter and strongly supporting the
development of all-hazards emergency plans for child day care
facilities and nursery schools throughout the state. This letter did
not express a position on the petition and was characterized by the NRC
as supporting the petition. The Director of PEMA, on behalf of the
Governor's office, subsequently challenged the NRC's characterization
of the original letter as supporting the petition and requested the
characterization be formally corrected.
1 Letter and E-mail from DHS/FEMA commenting on errors and
potential mischaracterizations within the December 19, 2005, Federal
Register Notice denying the petition.
NRC Evaluation
The Commission has reviewed each of the petitioners' requests and
provides the following analysis:
1. The petitioners' first and more general request is that day care
centers and nursery schools, located within the 10-mile EPZ, be
included in state and local government offsite emergency planning.
NRC Review
The current regulatory structure already requires that day care
centers and nursery schools be included in the offsite emergency
planning for nuclear power plants. Consequently, no revision to 10 CFR
part 50 is necessary. The Commission's emergency planning regulations,
in 10 CFR 50.47, require the NRC to make a finding, before issuing an
initial operating license, that there is ``reasonable assurance that
adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
radiological emergency.'' Implicit in this regulation is the
requirement that offsite emergency plans be protective of all members
of the public, including children attending day care centers and
nursery schools, within the 10-mile EPZ. Joint NRC and FEMA
implementing guidance, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, states that
emergency plans must provide specific means for ``protecting those
persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as
institutional or other confinement.'' NUREG-0654, Section II.J. and
Appendix 4, as well as FEMA GM 24, ``Radiological Emergency
Preparedness for Handicapped Persons,'' dated April 5, 1984, also
provide guidance. Children in day care centers and nursery schools are
included in the category of persons needing special protection. FEMA GM
EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' was issued to provide
guidance to assist federal officials in evaluating adequacy of state
and local government offsite emergency plans and preparedness for
protecting school children during a radiological emergency. This
guidance is also intended for state and local government officials and
administrators of public and private schools, including licensed and
government supported pre-schools and day care centers, for developing
emergency response plans and preparedness for protecting the health and
safety of children in their charge.
FEMA (now part of DHS) is the Federal agency responsible for making
findings and determinations as to whether state and local emergency
plans are adequate and whether there is a reasonable assurance that
they can be implemented. FEMA uses the guidance documents discussed
above to make such findings. The NRC makes its finding as to whether
the emergency plans provide a reasonable assurance that adequate
protective measures can and will be taken under 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2). The
NRC's findings are based upon FEMA findings and determinations in this
area. The NRC would not grant an initial operating license if FEMA
found that state and local government emergency plans did not
adequately address day care centers and nursery schools. In accordance
with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii), if significant deficiencies in a state or
local governments' off-site emergency plan were discovered after the
operating license was issued, and those deficiencies were not corrected
within four months of discovery (or a plan for correction was not in
place), the Commission would determine whether the reactor should be
shut down until the deficiencies are remedied or whether some other
enforcement action would be appropriate. Based on this information and
considering that the existing regulatory structure already has
requirements addressing the facilities of concern to the petitioners,
no revision to 10 CFR part 50 is necessary in response to the
petitioners' general request.
The more specific elements of the petition follow:
A. Require that children attending day care centers and nursery
schools be assigned to designated relocation centers established safely
outside the EPZ.
NRC Review
The petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR part 50 is not needed
because the requested action is already covered by FEMA guidance
documents. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5) specifies that evacuation planning may
be developed in three contexts: (1) Part of the existing radiological
emergency plans; (2) a separate annex of an existing integrated plan
for many types of disasters and emergencies; or (3) a separate
evacuation plan for all of the schools in each school system. GM EV-2
specifies that schools officials should document in the plan the basis
for determining the proper protective action (e.g., evacuation, early
preparatory measures, early evacuation, sheltering, early dismissal or
combination) including but not limited to, the name and location of
relocation center(s), and transport route(s), if applicable and on an
institution-specific basis. Furthermore, GM EV-2 specifies that local
governments should ensure that appropriate organizational officials
assume responsibility for the emergency planning and preparedness for
all of the identified schools, including day care centers and nursery
schools. Local governments should also ensure that the emergency
planning undertaken by these organizations is integrated within the
larger offsite emergency
[[Page 44597]]
management framework for the particular nuclear power plant site. FEMA
assesses offsite emergency plans using this guidance when making a
finding that a plan adequately protects the public. Under the MOU
between FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to FEMA's expertise in offsite
emergency plan requirements and assessments.
B. Require that children attending day care centers and nursery
schools be provided with designated transportation to relocation
centers in the event of an emergency evacuation.
NRC Review
As previously discussed, FEMA (now part of DHS) is the federal
agency responsible for making findings and determinations as to whether
state and local emergency plans are adequate. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5)
specifies that school officials should document in their plans the
basis for determining the proper protective action (e.g., evacuation,
early preparatory measures, early evacuation, sheltering, early
dismissal or combination) including but not limited to, the means for
effecting protective actions and specific resources allocated for
transportation and supporting letters of agreement if resources are
provided from external sources, on an institution-specific basis.
Furthermore, FEMA's GM EV-2 specifies that local governments should
ensure that appropriate organizational officials assume responsibility
for the emergency planning and preparedness for all of the identified
schools, including day care centers and nursery schools. Local
governments should also ensure that the emergency planning undertaken
by these organizations is integrated within the larger offset emergency
management framework for the particular nuclear power plant site. FEMA
reviews emergency plans to ensure that this provision is addressed.
Consequently, a revision to 10 CFR part 50 is not needed.
C. Require that children attending day care centers and nursery
schools be transported in approved child-safety seats that meet state
and federal laws as they pertain to the transportation of children and
infants under 50 pounds in weight or 4 feet 9 inches in height.
NRC Review
Requiring seat belts or child safety seats on school buses that may
be used for evacuating schools is outside NRC statutory authority. Such
a requirement would instead need to be promulgated by the Department of
Transportation or appropriate state authorities.
D. Require the creation and maintenance of working rosters of
emergency bus drivers and back-up drivers for day care center and
nursery school evacuation vehicles, and the establishment of a system
for notifying these individuals in the event of a radiological
emergency. These rosters should be regularly checked and updated, with
a designated back-up driver listed for each vehicle and route.
NRC Review
The petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR part 50 is not needed
because NRC considers the existing requirements and guidance adequate
for the evaluation of planning with respect to transportation
resources, including drivers. FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 5-6) specifies that
school officials should document in the plan the basis for determining
the proper protective action including: Means for effecting protective
actions; specific resources allocated for transportation and supporting
letters of agreement if resources are provided from external sources;
and, means for alerting and notifying appropriate persons and groups
associated with the schools and the students, including the method for
contacting and activating designated dispatchers and school bus
drivers. Under the MOU between FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to
FEMA's (now part of DHS) expertise in state and local emergency plan
requirements and assessments. FEMA recently completed an emergency
preparedness exercise at TMI and issued a final report on August 4,
2005. FEMA identified no deficiencies in this particular area.
E. Require notification of emergency management officials by
individual preschools as to the details of each institution's
radiological emergency plan.
NRC Review
NRC considers that current NRC and FEMA (now part of DHS)
requirements and guidance are adequate. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5)
identifies criteria by which an emergency plan will typically be
acceptable if it fully addresses the emergency functions for the
evacuation of, or other appropriate protective measures, for school
children including licensed and government supported pre-schools and
day care centers. Accordingly, local government should take the
initiative to identify and contact all public and private school
systems, including day care centers and nursery schools, within the
designated plume exposure pathway EPZ to assure that both public and
private school officials address appropriate planning for protecting
the health and safety of their students from a commercial nuclear power
plant accident.
The planning of both the public and private school officials should
be closely coordinated with that of the local government. Local
governments should ensure that appropriate organizational officials
assume responsibility for the emergency planning and preparedness for
all of the identified schools. Local governments should also ensure
that the emergency planning undertaken by these organizations is
integrated within the larger offsite emergency management framework for
the particular nuclear power plant site.
As mentioned previously in response to issue ``A'', the evacuation
planning may be developed in three contexts: (1) Part of the existing
radiological emergency plans; (2) a separate annex of an existing
integrated plan for many types of disasters and emergencies; or (3) a
separate evacuation plan for all of the schools in each school system.
GM EV-2 specifies that school officials should document in the plan the
basis for determining the proper protective action (e.g., evacuation,
early preparatory measures, early evacuation, sheltering, early
dismissal or combination) including:
Identification of the organization and officials
responsible for both planning and effecting the protective action.
Institution-specific information:
--Name and location of school;
--Type of school and age grouping (e.g., public elementary school,
grades kindergarten through sixth);
--Total population (students, faculty, and other employees);
--Means for implementing protective actions;
--Specific resources allocated for transportation and supporting
letters of agreement if resources are provided from external sources;
and
--Name and location of relocation center(s) and transport route(s), if
applicable.
If parts of the institution-specific information apply to
many or all schools, then the information may be presented generically.
Time frames for effecting the protective actions.
Means for alerting and notifying appropriate persons and
groups associated with the schools and the students including:
--Identification of the organization responsible for providing
emergency information to the schools;
--The method (e.g., siren and telephone calls) for contacting and
providing emergency information on recommended protective actions to
school officials;
[[Page 44598]]
--The method (e.g., siren, tone-alert radios, and telephone calls) for
contacting and activating designated dispatchers and school bus
drivers; and
--The method (e.g., Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages) for
notifying parents and guardians of the status and location of their
children.
Based on the above, the petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR
part 50 is not required.
F. Require annual site inspections of day care centers and nursery
schools within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials.
NRC Review
Inspections of day care centers and nursery schools are the
responsibility of the individual state and are outside NRC statutory
authority. The Commission sees no safety reason within the scope of its
statutory authority to require annual inspections of day care centers
and nursery schools.
G. Require the participation of day care centers and nursery
schools within the EPZ in radiological emergency preparedness exercises
designed to determine each institution's state of readiness.
NRC Review
Current NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section F.2,
permit exercises without public (including day care centers and nursery
schools) participation. The Commission has determined that exercises
can be adequately evaluated without the participation of schools or
members of the public. This eliminates safety concerns for students, as
well as the disruption of day care center and nursery school activities
that might arise during exercise participation. In addition, as
mentioned in the response to request ``E,'' pursuant to FEMA (now part
of DHS) guidance, governments should take the initiative to identify
and contact all public and private school systems, including day care
centers and nursery schools, within the designated plume exposure
pathway EPZ to assure that both public and private school officials
address appropriate planning for protecting the health and safety of
their students from a commercial nuclear power plant accident. The
petition has presented no evidence that would cause the NRC to
reconsider this determination.
H. Require creation of identification cards, school attendance
lists, and fingerprint records for all children who are to be
transported to a relocation center, to ensure no child is left behind
or is unable, due to age, to communicate his or her contact information
to emergency workers.
NRC Review
State and local governments have the responsibility for ensuring
that licensed day care centers and nursery schools have mechanisms in
place for maintaining child accountability. FEMA (now part of DHS), as
the authority on offsite emergency planning, has determined that it is
unnecessary to require that such detailed mechanisms be a component of
emergency plans. The Commission finds no safety reason to justify
requiring such detailed mechanisms in its regulations.
I. Require development by emergency management officials of
educational materials for parents, informing them what will happen to
their children in case of a radiological emergency, and where their
children can be picked up after an emergency evacuation.
NRC Review
Current NRC and FEMA requirements and guidance adequately address
this specific request. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 2) specifies that the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) notify parents of the status and location
of their children in the event of an emergency. The Commission believes
that parental notification via the EAS is adequate to assure that
parents will be informed of their children's location following an
emergency evacuation.
J. Require socking of KI pills and appropriate educational
materials at all day care centers and nursery schools within the 10-
mile EPZ.
NRC Review
The Commission's regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.47b.(10),
require individual states to consider using KI in the event of an
emergency. The regulations require that a range of protective actions
be developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers
and the public. In developing this range of actions, consideration was
to be given to evacuation, sheltering, and, as a supplement to these,
the prophylactic use of KI, as appropriate. Under this regulation, each
individual state must decide whether the stockpiling of KI is
appropriate for the citizens within its jurisdiction. Once a state
decides to stockpile KI, it is incumbent on that state to develop a
program for distribution. This program is reviewed by FEMA (now part of
DHS) under the 44 CFR part 350 process. The petition did not provide
information that would cause the NRC to reconsider this determination.
K. Require radiological emergency preparedness training for all day
care center and nursery school employees within the 10-mile EPZ.
NRC Review
The Commission believes that specialized training for day care
center and nursery school employees is unnecessary because they would
be using already established and distributed procedures for evacuation.
Absent compelling information that specialized training for day care
and nursery school employees would result in significant safety
benefits that justify the additional regulatory burden, the Commission
finds no safety reason to justify the requested revision to 10 CFR part
50.
L. Require listing of designated relocation centers in area phone
directories, so that parents can quickly and easily find where their
children will be sent in case of a radiological emergency.
NRC Review
FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 2 and 4) specifies that offsite emergency plans
are to identify relocation centers outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all
schools, including day care centers and nursery schools. Some states
list the relocation centers in telephone directories, some states
identify the relocation centers in the yearly public information
packages, and some states identify the relocation centers in their
offsite emergency plans.\1\ The Commission believes that the current
publication practices are adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See March 23, 2005 letter from Roy Zimmerman to Eric J.
Epstein and March 24, 2005 letter from Roy Zimmerman to Lawrence T.
Christian (available on NRC's ADAMS document system under the
accession numbers ML050590344 and ML050590357, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Require establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines,
to provide information about radiological emergency plans and
procedures for day care centers and nursery schools within the 10-mile
EPZ.
NRC Review
Although not required by NRC regulations or provided in FEMA
guidance, all states provide a toll-free phone number in the yearly
public information package where members of the public can acquire
emergency preparedness information. The Commission sees no added safety
benefits in revising its regulations to require something that all
states are already doing.
N. Creation of written scripts for use by the local Emergency Alert
System
[[Page 44599]]
that include information about evacuation plans and designated
relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools.
NRC Review
FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 6) specifies that a method is to exist (e.g.,
EAS) for notifying day care center and nursery school parents of the
status and location of their children, in the event of an emergency.
FEMA (now part of DHS) has decided that it is unnecessary to
incorporate such a prescriptive requirement into its regulations and
guidance, which allows the off-site response organizations the
flexibility to develop adequate plans and procedures that best fit
their specific needs, and the needs of the affected public that they
are charged with protecting. The petition provided no evidence that the
current method of notification is inadequate. As a result, the
Commission sees no added safety benefit in requiring a written script.
Commission Evaluation
The evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the
rulemaking requested by the petition with respect to the four strategic
goals of the Commission follows:
1. Ensure Protection of Public Health and Safety and the
Environment: The NRC staff believes that the requested rulemaking would
not make a significant contribution to maintaining safety because
current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance already require inclusion
of nursery schools and day care centers in state and local government
offsite emergency plans. This was verified by the state governments
that submitted comment letters which stated that day care centers and
nursery schools are included in their offsite emergency planning and
that this is not an issue requiring a change to the emergency planning
regulations. As such, it is a potential compliance issue that can be
resolved using the current regulatory structure.
2. Ensure the Secure Use and Management of Radioactive Materials:
The requested regulatory amendments would have no impact on the
security provisions necessary for the secure use and management of
radioactive materials. The petition for rulemaking deals with the
taking of protective actions for nursery schools and day care centers
by offsite authorities, which is currently required by NRC and FEMA
regulations and guidance.
3. Ensure Openness in Our Regulatory Process: The requested
rulemaking would not enhance openness or public confidence in our
regulatory process because the petitioners' requests raise potential
issues of compliance with the existing requirements and guidance. The
NRC staff does not believe that the contentions identify deficiencies
in regulatory requirements. The Commission's regulations require that
protective actions have been developed for the public, including day
care centers and nursery schools. Existing guidance in NUREG-0654 and
in GM-EV2 address the planning for this segment of the population.
Appendix 4 in NUREG-0654, discusses ``special facility populations.''
Day care centers and nursery schools fall under the definition of
``special facility populations'' and as such, these populations should
be included in the offsite emergency response plans. It should be
noted, however, that 3000 members of the public co-signed the original
petition for rulemaking. Additionally, 410 members of the public signed
letters supporting the petition. This amount of public support
reinforces the importance of NRC and FEMA's continued commitment to
providing protection for the public in the event of an emergency which
has always included day care centers and nursery schools.
4. Ensure that NRC Actions Are Effective, Efficient, Realistic and
Timely: The proposed revisions would decrease efficiency and
effectivensss because current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance
already adequately address the petition requests. Amending the
regulations would require licensees and state and local governments to
generate additional and more prescriptive information in their
emergency plans, and the NRC and FEMA staffs would need to evaluate the
additional information. The additional NRC staff and licensee effort
would not improve efficiency or effectiveness. In addition, the NRC
resources expended to promulgate the rule and supporting regulatory
guidance would be significant with little return value.
5. Ensure Excellence in Agency Management: The requested rule would
have no effect on the excellence in NRC management, but would increase
licensee and state and local government burden by requiring the
generation of additional, unnecessary, and burdensome information with
little expected benefit because current NRC and FEMA regulations and
guidance already adequately address the petition requests. This
rulemaking would add significant burden on a national scale in order to
address a potential local compliance issue.
Reason for Denial
The Commission is denying the petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79)
submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al. Current NRC requirements
and NRC and FEMA guidance, provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of all members of the public, including children attending
day care centers and nursery schools, in the event of a nuclear power
plant incident. Many of the specific requests of the petitioner are
either already covered by regulations and/or guidance documents or are
inappropriate for inclusion in NRC regulations due to their very
prescriptive nature. The Commission does believe, however, that
information obtained during the review of the petition does raise
questions about local implementation of relevant requirements and
guidelines. Accordingly, the NRC staff met with FEMA officials to
assure an understanding of this issue for consideration by FEMA as
reflected in separate letters to the petitioner and TMI-Alert Chairman,
Eric Epstein dated respectively, March 23, 2005 and March 24, 2005.\2\
Copies of those letters are available through the NRCs ADAMS document
system and can be located using accession numbers ML050590344 and
ML050590357, respectively. The NRC staff will continue to work with
FEMA to ensure emergency planning exercises are appropriately focused
and provide adequate assurance regarding compliance with NRC and FEMA
regulations and guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FEMA did evaluate a May 3, 2005 Emergency Planning exercise
at TMI. NRC understands that during this exercise FEMA reviewed
aspects of emergency planning involving nurseries and day care
centers. No deficiencies were identified by FEMA during the
exercise. FEMA's final report on the exercise was issued on August
4, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-50-79.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of August, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-6723 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M