[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5187-5191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1904]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. PRM-50-85; NRC-2007-0014]
Mr. Eric Epstein, Chairman, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.; 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 (PRM) submitted by Mr. Eric Epstein, Chairman
of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA). The petitioner requested that
the NRC amend its emergency preparedness regulations to require that
all host school pick-up centers be located at least 5 to 10 miles
beyond the radiation plume exposure boundary zone to ensure that all
school children are protected in the event of a radiological emergency.
DATES: The docket for PRM-50-85 is closed on January 29, 2009.
[[Page 5188]]
ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition,
including public comments, the PRM, and the NRC's letter of denial to
the petitioner, may be viewed electronically at http://www.regulations.gov (search Docket ID NRC-2007-0014) or on public
computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1-F21, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are also available electronically via the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this Web site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and
image files of the 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 by telephone at (800) 387-4209
or (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail at [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Telephone: (301) 415-3092; e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On April 11, 2007, the NRC received a PRM (ADAMS Accession No.
ML071070475) from Mr. Eric Epstein, Chairman of TMIA. The NRC docketed
the petition on April 17, 2007, and assigned it Docket No. PRM-50-85.
The petitioner requested that the Commission amend its emergency
preparedness regulations in Title 10, Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities,'' of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR part 50) to require that all host school pick-up
centers be located at least 5 to 10 miles beyond the radiation plume
exposure boundary zone to properly ensure that all school children are
protected in the event of a radiological emergency. The petitioner
observed that this criterion applies to the general population
relocation centers and that the lack of such a criterion for host
school pick-up centers is a ``regulatory gap.''
The NRC notes that, as discussed herein, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) distinguishes host school pick-up centers from
general population relocation centers. Host school pick-up centers
serve as temporary locations where school children can be held while
they wait for their parents or guardians to pick them up, whereas
general population relocation centers offer longer term assistance to
people displaced from their homes. FEMA guidance provides for the
location of host schools outside the plume exposure pathway emergency
planning zone (EPZ), whereas joint NRC and FEMA guidance provides for
the location of general population relocation centers at least 5 miles
and preferably 10 miles beyond the boundaries of the EPZ.
Discussion
The Commission is responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear
facilities as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and other applicable
statutes. These responsibilities include protecting public health and
safety, protecting the environment, and protecting and safeguarding
nuclear materials and nuclear power plants in the interest of national
security. In June 1979, the Commission began formal reconsideration of
the role of emergency planning in ensuring the continued protection of
the public health and safety. This effort resulted in the issuance of
emergency preparedness regulations published in the Federal Register on
August 19, 1980 (45 FR 55402), and the development of onsite and
offsite emergency plans within the EPZ of each nuclear power plant
located in the U.S.
Although the NRC is the sole Federal agency responsible for
licensing and regulating nuclear reactors, Federal oversight of
radiological emergency planning and preparedness for nuclear facilities
involves both FEMA and the NRC. Executive Order No.12148--Federal
Emergency Management, dated July 15, 1979, assigned FEMA the authority
and responsibility to establish Federal regulations and policies and to
coordinate civilian emergency planning within emergency preparedness
programs. In December 1979, a Presidential Directive assigned FEMA the
lead Federal responsibility for State and local emergency planning and
preparedness activities with respect to jurisdictions near nuclear
reactors, while assigning onsite emergency planning and preparedness
oversight to the NRC. The NRC and FEMA entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that delineated the agencies' roles in ensuring
adequate emergency preparedness. Under the provisions of this MOU
(Appendix A, ``Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' to 44 CFR part
353, ``Fee for Services in Support, Review, and Approval of State and
Local Government or Licensee Radiological Emergency Plans and
Preparedness''), FEMA reviews State and local emergency plans and
preparedness and approves them based upon its findings and
determinations with respect to the adequacy of the State and local
plans and the capabilities of State and local governments to
effectively implement these plans and preparedness measures.
Accordingly, FEMA is the lead authority concerning the direction,
recommendations, and determinations regarding offsite State and local
government radiological emergency planning efforts necessary for the
public health and safety.
FEMA provides its findings and determinations on offsite
preparedness to the NRC for use in its licensing processes. The NRC
reviews these findings and determinations and, in conjunction with its
assessment of the onsite preparedness and capabilities, determines
whether the overall state of emergency preparedness satisfies the
requirements for the issuance of operating licenses for, or for the
continued operation of, nuclear reactors.
In keeping with their respective statutory authorities, the NRC and
FEMA issue and maintain regulations and regulatory guidance concerning
emergency preparedness. The NRC and FEMA jointly developed broadly
worded planning standards that onsite and offsite emergency plans would
be required to meet in order to receive a favorable determination of
preparedness. The respective agency regulations codified these planning
standards (see 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 44 CFR 350.5(a)), and the NRC and
FEMA provided supporting guidance in the agencies' jointly-prepared
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision1, ``Criteria for Preparation and
Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in
Support of Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated November 30, 1980
(ML040420012), and addenda, dated March 31, 2001 (ML021050240). Each
agency has further supplemented that guidance with guidance documents
addressing emergency preparedness topics within its respective
cognizance--the NRC with onsite topics and FEMA with offsite topics.
Public Comments
On July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37470), the NRC published a notice of
receipt of
[[Page 5189]]
PRM-50-85 and invited interested persons to submit their comments. The
NRC received 14 comment letters in response. Comment letters came from
five private citizens, three representatives from State government
agencies, and six public advocacy organizations. Thirteen of the
comment letters supported the petition while giving varying reasons for
doing so.
Comments Supporting the Petition
The NRC received 13 comment letters supporting the petition. One
commenter stated that the granting of the petition is in accordance
with the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). Another individual expressed the opinion that the current
regulations allow evacuees to be taken to centers just over the 10-mile
evacuation line, which could possibly have ``some very bizarre results,
such as children being evacuated across a street or to a neighbor's
house,'' and recommended that the NRC consider this ``reasonable and
well thought out petition.''
While supporting the petition, a State Representative from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reiterated the petitioner's observation
that there is an inconsistency in the treatment of host school pick-up
centers and general population relocation centers. Although host school
pick-up centers may be just outside the 10-mile radiation exposure
boundary zone, the commenter noted that ``general population relocation
centers * * * according to NRC and DHS/FEMA regulations, are required
to be at least 5 miles and recommended to be at least 10 miles beyond''
the EPZ.
A representative of a public advocacy group, Beyond Nuclear,
supported the TMIA petition, but stated that the relocation centers are
also designed to be ``decontamination centers'' and ``reunification
locations'' and should be located at least ``10 to 20 miles beyond the
currently designated 50 mile radius of the ingestion pathway zone.''
This commenter believes that the decontamination and reunification
centers should be located at least 70 to 100 miles away from the
reactor accident site.
A commenter representing Pilgrim Watch submitted two comment
letters that differed only in the list of organizations and individuals
cited as supporting the comments submitted. In addition to supporting
the TMIA petition, the commenter cited several reasons for his opinion
that NRC emergency planning regulations are not soundly based. The
commenter believes that the 10-mile EPZ established by the NRC is
arbitrary and that the NRC has relied on outdated and inappropriate
radiation plume distribution models to justify emergency planning
regulations and guidance regarding the placement of relocation centers.
The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power and the Sierra Club
Pennsylvania Chapter endorse the TMIA petition but further comment that
``the additional five to ten miles of protective distance would be
inadequately protective for children.'' These organizations cited the
magnitude of potential releases, weather and travel conditions, time of
day, and other factors as conditions that should be considered in
siting the collection and relocation centers.
Comment Opposed to Granting the Petition
One commenter, representing the State of Tennessee, Tennessee
Emergency Management Agency Program, opposed granting the petition.
This commenter believes that it is not practical or wise to extend the
distance for relocating children an additional 5 to 10 miles beyond the
EPZ. He noted that the same buses will be needed for the evacuation
during the general emergency and that greater distances of travel for
school children increase the chance for a bus accident.
NRC Evaluation
The petitioner asserted that ``according to the NRC regulations
listed in NUREG-0654r1, general population relocation centers are
required to be located at least 5 miles beyond the radiation plume
exposure boundary zone'' and that the absence of such a requirement for
host school pick-up centers constitutes a ``regulatory gap.'' The NRC
does not agree with the petitioner's statement of concern. NUREG-0654/
FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, does not contain NRC regulations or requirements.
Regulatory Guide 1.101, Revision 4, ``Emergency Planning and
Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' issued July 2003
(ML032020276), identifies NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 as an
acceptable method for showing compliance with the Commission's
emergency preparedness regulations. The NRC uses the methods described
in this guide, including NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, to evaluate
emergency plans for nuclear power reactors. As with all NRC regulatory
guidance, compliance is not required and applicants or licensees may
propose alternative methods of complying with the requirements.
Similarly, the NRC recognizes that FEMA may find alternatives used by
State and local governments to be acceptable means for meeting the
planning standards and the evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-
1, Rev 1.
Section II.J of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, provides evaluation
criteria for the planning standard in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10), which
addresses protective measures for ``emergency workers and the public.''
Although the NRC has not defined ``public,'' it is generally understood
that it includes all segments of the population including school
children. Section II.J.10 requires that an organization's plan to
implement protective measures may include various capabilities and
resources. Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.h in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev
1, provides for the establishment of relocation centers (also known as
``reception centers'') where evacuees are monitored, decontaminated (if
necessary), and registered. Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.h provides
that these facilities should be located at least 5 miles and preferably
10 miles beyond the boundaries of the EPZ. The NRC notes that, in the
absence of exclusionary modifiers, this criterion applies to relocation
centers for all segments of the population including school children.
Furthermore, FEMA Guidance Memorandum EV-2, ``Protective Actions for
School Children,'' provides for temporary sheltering outside the EPZ in
host schools (or ``host school pick-up centers'' or ``evacuation
centers'') with no further stipulation regarding distance beyond the
EPZ.
The NRC intentionally used broad language in the planning standards
of 10 CFR 50.47(b) because they apply to applicants, licensees, State
governments, and local governments. The planning standards do not
contain prescriptive requirements but instead give the organizations
the flexibility to develop plans and procedures that best fit their
specific needs and the needs of the affected public that they are
charged with protecting. The NRC and FEMA believe that numeric
criteria, such as the minimum distance to a relocation center, properly
belong in regulatory guidance. Because the existing regulatory
structure already has minimum distance criteria for relocation centers
for all segments of the population, including school children, no
revision to 10 CFR part 50 is necessary in response to the petitioner's
request.
In accordance with the NRC and FEMA MOU (44 CFR part 353), the NRC
forwarded a copy of this petition to, and has discussed the
petitioner's request with, FEMA. Subsequently, in a May 14,
[[Page 5190]]
2008, letter to Mr. Anthony C. McMurtray (NRC) (ML081570134); Ms.
Vanessa E. Quinn (FEMA) stated that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
current practice of designating host schools for temporary sheltering
of school children at locations outside the EPZ conforms with existing
FEMA guidance. The FEMA letter clarifies that host schools are pre-
designated sites outside the EPZ specifically designed to receive and
provide temporary shelter to evacuated students outside the EPZ until
their parents or guardians regain custody of them. Host schools are
generally located in the same school district as the primary school to
make it easy for parents or guardians to pick up their students. If a
parent or guardian has not picked up his or her student, the student is
then transported to a relocation center for longer term protection and
care. As such, these designated sites do not serve as relocation
centers as identified in Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.h and, therefore,
do not need to meet the siting criteria that apply to a relocation
center.
The NRC observes that the schools specifically identified in the
petition are all located in the West Shore School District. Based upon
information provided to the community in the 2008-2009 West Shore
School District Handbook (ML082890467), the NRC has determined that the
district encompasses communities and schools within and outside of the
EPZ. The West Shore District planning designates four West Shore
District schools, all located outside the EPZ, as evacuation centers.
Students at these four schools that reside within the EPZ would remain
there until their parents or guardians pick them up. For two of the
four schools, students who reside outside the EPZ would be sent home
when buses were available provided that it was safe to do so. Students
at other West Shore District schools located within the EPZ would be
evacuated to one of the four designated evacuation centers to wait for
their parents or guardians to pick them up. In its May 14, 2008,
letter, FEMA stated that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's current
practice of designating host schools for temporary sheltering of school
children at locations outside the EPZ conforms with existing FEMA
guidance.
The emergency planning basis provided in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1,
Rev. 1, summarizes the considerations that went into the establishment
of the 10-mile EPZ. This basis provides that it would be unlikely that
any protective action would be required beyond the EPZ and that the
detailed planning for the EPZ would provide a substantial base for
expansion of response efforts in the event of a highly unlikely worse
case accident. The location of the relocation center that is stipulated
in Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.h is generally based on avoiding the
need to evacuate a relocation center in the unlikely event that it
became necessary to expand protective actions beyond 10 miles. Host
schools are not similarly affected because they are only a temporary
arrangement until parents or guardians pick up their students. As such,
the petitioner's request to apply the numeric criteria of Evaluation
Criterion II.J.10.h to host schools that are used solely as evacuation
pick-up sites is unwarranted.
The petitioner asserted that host schools that are located close to
the EPZ do not provide the same level of protection as would facilities
that are located further beyond the EPZ. Although the NRC agrees that
radiation exposure decreases with increasing distance, the impact of
the exposure on the persons exposed to the radiation is also a function
of the duration of the exposure. As indicated in the May 14, 2008, FEMA
letter, host school pick-up centers are only pick up points, and any
students whose parents or guardians have not picked them up would be
transported to a reception center. Thus, the duration of the students'
stay at a host school is expected to be short, after which their
parents or guardians would evacuate them further to the relocation
center or to other individually arranged locations (e.g., residences of
friends, hotels). The NRC notes that these host schools are located in
residential communities outside of the EPZ. According to NUREG-0654/
FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, protective actions would not likely be required
beyond the EPZ. Thus, students in these host schools would be afforded
the same level of protection as that of the other residents in that
community. As noted on the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency's
Web site at http://www.pema.state.pa.us/pema/cwp/view.asp?A=566&Q=254894, school children are usually relocated before
the evacuation of the general public as a precautionary measure, which
further increases the likelihood that parents or guardians will have
picked up their school children before the onset of a radioactive
release.
Based upon this evaluation of the petitioner's request and in
consultation with FEMA, the NRC has found no sufficient basis to
question the adequacy of FEMA guidance and findings regarding the
adequacy of the protective action arrangements for school children.
This finding, in conjunction with the finding that the existing
regulations and regulatory guidance are adequate, is the basis for the
Commission's decision to deny the petitioner's request.
Consistent with the reasons provided above for denying the
petition, the NRC finds that the commenters do not present evidence to
compel the NRC to consider seeking changes to the existing regulatory
structure. In addition, commenters raised two issues that concern the
size of the EPZ and the distance of the host schools from the EPZ that
is required to provide adequate safety to school children. The NRC
notes that although these issues exceed the scope of the petition, the
existing regulations and guidance provide reasonable assurance of
adequate protection for all members of the public in the event of a
radiological incident at a nuclear power plant.
One commenter stated, without providing specific examples, that
``many host pick-up schools are located within [the EPZ].'' The
petition does not make this claim and includes information from the
West Shore School District explaining that all of the host school pick-
up centers ``are outside the ten[-]mile zone from TMI [Three Mile
Island].''
Another commenter identified an implementation issue that may be
encountered in the event that host school pick-up centers are sited an
additional distance beyond the EPZ. Because FEMA reviews the adequacy
of offsite emergency plans and preparedness and the capabilities of
State and local governments to effectively implement these plans and
preparedness measures and because the NRC reviews FEMA findings and
determinations, the current regulatory structure already addresses the
issue highlighted by the commenter.
Reason for Denial
The Commission is denying PRM-50-85 submitted by Mr. Epstein of
TMIA. Current NRC regulations and NRC and FEMA regulatory guidance
provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of all members of
the public, including school children, in the event of a nuclear power
plant incident. Because it is prescriptive in nature and existing
regulations and guidance already cover the petitioner's request, PRM-
50-85 is hereby denied.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of January 2009.
[[Page 5191]]
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-1904 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P