[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