[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44671-44673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17544]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 54

[Docket No. PRM-54-5]


Eric Epstein; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Denial.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a 
petition for rulemaking submitted by Eric Epstein (PRM-54-5). The 
petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations that govern 
renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants. Specifically, 
the petitioner requests that the NRC conduct a comprehensive review of 
U.S. nuclear power plant licensees' emergency planning during the 
license renewal proceedings. The NRC is denying the petition because 
the petition presents issues that the Commission carefully considered 
when it first adopted the license renewal rule and denied petitions for 
rulemaking submitted by Andrew J. Spano, County Executive, Westchester 
County, New York (PRM-54-02), and Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of Brick 
Township, New Jersey (PRM-54-03). The Commission's position is that the 
NRC's emergency planning system is part of a comprehensive regulatory 
process that is intended to provide continuing assurance that emergency 
planning for every nuclear plant is adequate. Thus, the Commission has 
already extensively considered and addressed the types of issues raised 
in the petition. Also, the petition fails to present any significant 
new information or arguments that would warrant the requested 
amendment.

ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition, 
including the petition for rulemaking and NRC's letter of denial to the 
petitioner may be viewed electronically on public computers in NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), 01F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor 
will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or 
received at 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 Documents 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 the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR reference 
staff at (800) 387-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Bafundo, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, 
telephone (301) 415-1621 or Toll

[[Page 44672]]

Free: 1-800-368-5642, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    During the 1991 license renewal rulemaking (56 FR 64943; December 
13, 1991), the Commission explained that initial license-type reviews 
are unnecessary at license renewal because of ongoing NRC inspections, 
enforcement, and upgrades: ``since initial licensing, each operating 
plant has continually been inspected and reviewed as a result of new 
information gained from operating experience.'' (56 FR at 64945). These 
ongoing regulatory processes provide reasonable assurance that the 
licensing bases of currently operating plants provide and maintain an 
adequate level of safety. (60 FR at 22464, 22481-22482; May 8, 1995). 
The license renewal rule likewise reflects the NRC's determination that 
issues of adequate safety and protection should be addressed when they 
arise. See, 60 FR at 22481. The NRC anticipated that safety issues will 
inevitably emerge, but concluded that its ongoing regulatory process is 
comprehensive and flexible enough to manage safety concerns before the 
license renewal process. (71 FR 74848, 74851; December 13, 2006). Also, 
in making revisions to the license renewal rule, the Commission 
reaffirmed the vitality of its regulatory process. See, 60 FR 22461.
    More specifically, the NRC's emergency preparedness regulations in 
10 CFR part 50 require licensees to test the adequacy of their 
preparedness and ability to respond to emergency situations by the 
performance of a full-scale exercise at least once every two years, 
with the participation of Government agencies. These exercises are 
evaluated by NRC inspectors and FEMA evaluators. In the interval 
between these two-year exercises, licensees must conduct additional 
drills to ensure that they maintain adequate emergency response 
capabilities.
    Further, the NRC actively reviews its regulatory framework to 
ensure that the regulations are current and effective. The agency began 
a major review of its emergency preparedness framework in 2005, 
including a comprehensive review of the emergency preparedness 
regulations and guidance, the issuance of generic communications 
regarding the integration of emergency preparedness and security, and 
outreach efforts to interested persons to discuss emergency 
preparedness issues. These activities have informed an ongoing 
rulemaking effort that will enhance the NRC's emergency preparedness 
regulations and guidance. See, Rulemaking Plan for Enhancements to 
Emergency Preparedness Regulations and Guidance, (April 17, 2007) 
(ML070440148); SRM-SECY-06-0200, Results of the Review of Emergency 
Preparedness Regulations and Guidance, (January 8, 2007) (ML070080411); 
SECY-06-0200, Results of the Review of Emergency Preparedness 
Regulations and Guidance (September 20, 2006) (ML061910707).

The Petition

    This petition raises concerns nearly identical to the recent 
petitions by Andrew J. Spano, County Executive, Westchester County, New 
York (PRM-54-02) and Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of Brick Township, New 
Jersey (PRM-54-03), which the Commission denied after public comments. 
In the Spano and Scarpelli petitions, the petitioners requested that 
the NRC amend its regulations to provide that the agency renew a 
license only if the plant operator demonstrates that the plant meets 
all criteria and requirements that would apply if it were proposing the 
plant de novo for initial construction, including an emergency planning 
analysis. Similarly, this petition requests the NRC to make a ``new 
finding of `reasonable assurance of adequate protection,' '' like a de 
novo review under the initial licensing process.
    In the Spano and Scarpelli denials, the NRC addressed issues it had 
already considered at length during its license renewal rulemaking. 
See, 71 FR 74848, 74851. The Commission explained that ``the 
petitioners did not present any new information that would contradict 
positions taken by the Commission when the license renewal rule was 
established or demonstrate that sufficient reason exists to modify the 
current regulations.'' Id. Likewise, this petition does not pose any 
new concerns that would undermine the rationale for the current license 
renewal process.
    For the reasons given by the Commission in the final license 
renewal rule (56 FR 64943; December 13, 1991) and again in revisions to 
the final rule (60 FR 22461; May 8, 1995), the scope of license renewal 
is appropriately limited to those issues which have a specific 
relevance to protecting the public health and safety during the license 
renewal period--i.e., age-related degradation. Issues relevant to 
current plant operations, like emergency planning and nuclear plant 
security, fall within the purview of the current regulatory process and 
continue into the extended operation period of a license renewal. The 
Commission also mandates that each plant-specific licensing basis be 
maintained during the renewal term in the same manner and to the same 
extent as during the original licensing term, thereby ensuring the 
protection of public health and safety and the preservation of common 
defense and security.
    The Commission has affirmed repeatedly that ``emergency 
preparedness need not be reviewed again for license renewal.'' 71 FR at 
74852 (referencing 56 FR at 64966). The Commission stated that 
``[t]hrough its standards and required exercises, the Commission 
ensures that existing plans are adequate throughout the life of any 
plant even in the face of changing demographics and other site-related 
factors.'' 71 FR at 78452 (quoting 56 FR at 64966). This basic 
determination is reflected in the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.47(a) 
on emergency planning requirements, in which a new finding on emergency 
planning issues is not required for license renewal. Further, all of 
the emergency planning regulations in 10 CFR 50.47, 50.54(q), 50.54(s)-
(u), and Appendix E are independent of the license renewal process, and 
continue to apply during the extended operation term.
    For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-54-5.
    Following its review of this Notice, the Commission directed that 
the Notice include the following comments of Commissioner Jaczko:

    I disagree with the decision to deny this petition for 
rulemaking. Instead, I believe the review of a license renewal 
application authorizing, if granted, an additional twenty-years of 
operation, provides the opportune time at which the agency should 
re-evaluate emergency preparedness issues. Currently, the only time 
the NRC issues a comprehensive affirmative finding that both onsite 
and offsite emergency plans are in place around a nuclear power 
plant, and that they can be implemented, is at the time it grants an 
initial operating license. Although there are regular assessments of 
these plans through exercises and reviews, we do not periodically 
reassess that initial reasonable assurance of adequate protection of 
the public--even if it was made decades ago--unless and until we 
find a serious deficiency in a biennial exercise. I believe 
considering emergency preparedness during the license renewal 
process would provide an opportunity to improve public confidence in 
the licensees and in all levels of government.

    The Commission had additional views on the petition:

    The Commission majority does not share Commissioner Jaczko's 
dissenting view. As stated in each of our votes on this matter, and 
in support of the Commission's responsibility to oversee the safety 
and security of operating

[[Page 44673]]

reactors, we continue to support the view that issues of relevance 
to both current plant operation and operation during the license 
renewal period must be addressed as they arise within the present 
license term rather than at the time of renewal. Emergency planning 
is such an issue. Through its standards and required exercises, the 
Commission ensures that existing emergency plans are adequate 
throughout the life of any plant, even in the face of changing 
demographics and other site-related factors. The emergency 
preparedness regulations in 10 CFR part 50 require licensees to test 
the adequacy of their preparedness and ability to respond to 
emergency situations through the performance of a full-scale 
exercise at least once every two years. These drills and independent 
evaluations provide a process to ensure continued adequacy of 
emergency preparedness in light of changes in site characteristics. 
Consequently, consistent with the Commission's policy to confine the 
review of issues during license renewal to those uniquely relevant 
to protecting the public health and safety and common defense and 
security during the renewal period, we find no lost opportunity here 
and see no necessity for a review of emergency planning as part of 
the license renewal process.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E8-17544 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P