[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25375-25378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10314]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52
[PRM-50-104; NRC-2012-0046]
Emergency Planning Zone
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt and request for
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt for a petition for
rulemaking (PRM), dated February 15, 2012, which was filed with the NRC
by Mr. Michael Mariotte on behalf of the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service (NIRS or the petitioner) and 37 co-petitioners. The
petition was docketed by the NRC on February 17, 2012, and assigned
Docket No. PRM-50-104. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its
regulations to expand the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for nuclear
power plants.
DATES: Submit comments by July 16, 2012. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is
able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this petition for rulemaking, which the NRC possesses and is
publicly available, by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID NRC-2012-0046. You may submit comments by the following
methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0046. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
[[Page 25376]]
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-492-3667, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0046 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this petition for rulemaking.
You may access information related to this petition for rulemaking,
which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0046.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. The PRM is available in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML12048B004.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0046 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such
information before making the comment submissions available to the
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. The Petitioner and the 37 Co-Petitioners
The PRM describes the petitioner and the 37 co-petitioners as
``environmental and civic organizations with members who live within
100 miles of U.S. nuclear power plants and who are concerned that
current NRC emergency planning requirements are not adequate to protect
their health and safety in the event of an accident at the plant.''
The NIRS is a non-profit organization founded in 1978, which serves
as a ``national information and networking center for people concerned
about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable
energy issues.'' In addition, the NIRS is described as an organization
that provides public education on issues such as deregulation of
radioactive materials, new reactor licensing, transportation of
radioactive waste, and nuclear reactor safety.
III. The Petition
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.47, ``Emergency Plans,'' and Appendix E
to 10 CFR Part 50, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production
and Utilization Facilities,'' and include the modifications in 10 CFR
Part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power
Plants.'' Specifically, the petitioner requests that (1) the Plume
Exposure Pathway EPZ radius be expanded from a 10-mile radius to a 25-
mile radius, (2) a new 50-mile radius Emergency Response Zone, with
more limited requirements than the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ, be
established, (3) the Ingestion Pathway EPZ radius be expanded from a
50-mile radius to a 100-mile radius, and (4) the ``emergency plans are
tested to encompass initiating and/or concurrent natural disasters that
may affect both accident progression and evacuation conduct.'' The
petitioner asserts that ``the requested amendments are essential for
the protection of public health and safety in light of the real-world
experience of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, which were more
severe and affected a much larger geographical area than provided for
in NRC regulations.''
The petitioner states that ``[t]he NRC should amend 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) to create a three-tiered emergency planning zone * * *.''
The petitioner's three-tiered EPZ includes a 25 mile Plume Exposure
Pathway EPZ, 50 mile Emergency Response Zone, and 100 mile Ingestion
Exposure Pathway Zone. The following paragraphs provide a summary of
the petitioner's proposed revisions to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2).
25 Mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ
The petitioner proposes the following revision to 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) with regards to the plume exposure pathway EPZ:
A Plume Exposure Pathway zone shall consist of an area about 25
miles (40 km) in radius. Within this zone, detailed plans must be
developed to provide prompt and effective evacuation and other
appropriate protective measures, including conducting of biannual
full-scale emergency evacuation drills. Sirens will be installed
within this zone to alert the population of the need for evacuation.
Transportation for elderly, prison and school populations shall be
provided within this zone. Emergency shelters shall be located
outside of the 25-mile zone.
The petitioner asserts that the expansion of the plume exposure
pathway EPZ from a 10 mile radius to a 25 mile radius ``would provide
no new requirements other than expansion of the EPZ.''
50 Mile Emergency Response Zone
The petitioner proposes the following revision to 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) with regards to an Emergency Response Zone:
The [emergency response zone] shall be about 50 miles in radius.
Within this 50 mile zone, the licensee must identify evacuation
routes for all residents within this zone and annually provide
information to all residents within this zone about these routes and
which they are supposed to take in the event of an emergency. The
licensee must make basic pre-arrangements for potential transport of
disabled/hospital/prison populations. Emergency centers for the
public currently located less than 25 miles out shall be relocated
to 25 miles or further out. Information shall be made available to
the public within this zone through television, internet and radio
alerts, text message notices, and other appropriate means of public
communication.
The petitioner notes that this revision ``would require measures be
carried out between the new 25 mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ and a
new Emergency Response Zone of about a 50 mile radius.'' The petitioner
states that the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ
[[Page 25377]]
emergency evacuation requirements and biannual exercises are not
required in the Emergency Response Zone. The petitioner further states
``this new zone would provide a modest level of pre-planning that would
enable rapid expansion of the 25 mile zone when necessary. Information
regarding evacuation such as identification of evacuation routes and
locations of emergency shelters in the event of a large scale disaster
would be identified and would be provided to members of the public
annually, and a limited number of other pre-arrangements would be
made.''
100 Mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway Zone
The petitioner proposes the following revision to 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) with regards to the ingestion pathway EPZ:
The ingestion pathway EPZ shall be about 100 miles in radius. In
the event of a radioactive release, the deposition of radionuclides
on crops, other vegetation, bodies of surface water and ground
surfaces can occur. Measures will be implemented to protect the
public from eating and drinking food and water that may be
contaminated. Information shall be made available to the public
within this zone through television and radio alerts, text message
notices, and other appropriate means of public communication.
The petitioner states that ``[t]he current Ingestion Exposure
Pathway Zone exists to protect food, water and anything intended for
human consumption within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.'' The
petitioner further states ``[g]iven that radiation can, and does, have
far-reaching effects on food on a large radius, the Ingestion Pathway
EPZ should be expanded.''
Drills and Exercises
The petitioner proposes amending 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) with regards
to drills and exercises by adding:
Within the emergency evacuation zone full scale drills and
exercises will be conducted on a biannual basis. Every other
exercise and drill shall include a scenario involving an initiating
or concurrent regionally-appropriate natural disaster.
IV. The Petitioner's Bases
The petitioner states, ``[w]ith the exception of a 2011 rule
requiring licensees to use current U.S. census data to prepare
evacuation time estimates (ETEs) and update them every 10 years, the
NRC has made few significant improvements to its offsite emergency
response regulations since they were promulgated in 1980.'' The
petitioner notes that ``the NRC denied a set of petitions [submitted by
the Citizens Task Force of Chapel Hill, et al.] to increase the size of
the plume exposure pathway EPZ and the ingestion pathway EPZ'' in 1990.
The petitioner asserts that ``[t]he Commission declined to revisit the
assumptions about severe reactor accident risks that underlie its
emergency planning regulations, concluding that the existing size of
the EPZs was adequate to achieve `reasonable and feasible dose
reduction' under the circumstances of each individual reactor site.''
The petitioner's bases for the petition are further presented in the
following paragraphs.
Chernobyl, September 11, and Fukushima Experiences
The petitioner cites reports and findings regarding the Chernobyl
and Fukushima Dai-ichi accidents, and the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks to support the petition. The petitioner asserts that ``[t]he
accident at Fukushima, added to the experience of the Chernobyl
disaster, demonstrates that the 10 mile plume exposure pathway EPZ and
the 50 mile ingestion pathway EPZ are inadequate to protect the public
health and safety, both because severe accidents are clearly more
likely than any government previously has estimated and because their
effects are far more widespread.'' The petitioner specifically cites
the ``Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century:
The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident'' (Fukushima Task Force Report, ADAMS Accession No.
ML111861807), dated July 12, 2011. The petitioner notes that the Task
Force formed to examine the Fukushima disaster ``addressed the issues
of protecting against accidents resulting from natural phenomena,
mitigating the consequences of such accidents, and ensuring emergency
preparedness'' in the Fukushima Task Force Report. The petitioner also
notes that the Task Force ``made several recommendations, including
strengthening and integrating onsite emergency response capabilities
such as emergency operating procedures, severe accident management
guidelines, and extensive damage mitigation guidelines.'' The
petitioner asserts that ``the task force failed to make any
recommendations on improving emergency response capabilities or
expanding EPZ size, despite the Task Force's acknowledgement that it
was necessary to evacuate Japanese residents up to and beyond a 20-
kilometer (12-mile) area around Fukushima.'' As the petitioner notes,
the NRC is evaluating several Task Force recommendations related to
emergency preparedness. More information about these activities is
available through the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/japan/japan-info.html.
Real-World Experience and Improved Understanding of Severe Accident
Risks at Nuclear Reactors
The petitioner states that ``[t]he NRC's existing emergency
planning regulations (and the NRC's decision in Citizens Task Force of
Chapel Hill) are based primarily on experience gained by the Three Mile
Island accident and on NRC reactor safety studies conducted from the
1950s through the 1970s (for example, WASH-1400 and NUREG-1150) and are
encapsulated in NUREG-0396.'' The petitioner notes that in 2006, ``the
NRC began the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA)
project to re-evaluate the `realistic consequences of a severe reactor
accident.' '' The petitioner cites an October 2010 draft of the SOARCA
report to support the petition. The petitioner asserts that ``real-
world experience at Fukushima trumps the computer modeling of SOARCA in
any case and has presented the world--and the NRC--with an actual
accident that exceeds postulated scenarios.'' The petitioner continues
by stating ``[c]omputer models, simulations, evaluations of projected
scenarios--all can be useful tools in evaluating the relative risks of
complex systems like nuclear reactors. They can even be useful--in the
absence of real-world information--in establishing regulations. But
they exist primarily to generate postulated data in the absence of
actual data--they are not a substitute for actual, real-world
experience.''
Real-World Experience and Improved Understanding of Severe Accident
Risks at [Spent] Fuel Pools
The petitioner states that ``[spent] fuel pools pose a serious and
dangerous threat to the populations surrounding nuclear plants.
Accidents could cause widespread contamination of highly radioactive
materials.'' The petitioner asserts that ``[r]adiation exposure would
be significantly worse if there were to be [a spent] fuel pool accident
in addition to a reactor accident.'' The petitioner makes the following
statement regarding spent fuel pools: ``In theory, this form of storage
is meant to be temporary. But, because offsite storage of irradiated
fuel is currently unavailable, high density storage of this material
has been permitted to occur.'' The petitioner also states, ``Aside from
concerns associated with the dense packing of a pool, the pools
themselves are located outside of
[[Page 25378]]
the primary containment which is designed to keep radiation which is
released during an emergency event from escaping in to the environment.
Because they are outside of the primary containment structure, they are
more vulnerable than the core to natural disasters and terrorist
attacks.''
Improved Understanding of Health Effects of Radiation
The petitioner states ``[t]here is no `safe' dose of radiation, and
as such the consideration of the effects of release of radiation should
be given greater consideration.'' The petitioner cites the 2006
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Report and asserts
the report confirms that ``any exposure to radiation--including
background radiation--increases a person's risk of developing cancer.''
The petitioner states that ``the NRC and licensees must recognize that
their emergency response programs must be designed to protect not only
against radiation levels that would cause acute effects, but also
radiation levels that would exceed annual exposure limits * * *.'' The
petitioner asserts that ``a government policy that implicitly states,
as do NRC's existing emergency planning regulations, that radiation
exposure levels higher than normally allowable--by orders of
magnitude--are acceptable under emergency conditions, is a government
policy that is unsupportable and without basis in reality.''
Particular Problems Associated With Pressure Suppression Containments
The petitioner asserts that ``[t]he failure of a pressure
suppression containment can result in widespread radioactive
contamination of areas surrounding nuclear plants.'' The petitioner
states, ``In Japan, hydrogen explosions occurred at (at least) three GE
Mark I reactors using a pressure suppression system.'' The petitioner
also states, ``There are 23 GE Mark I nuclear reactors--about one-
quarter of the nation's reactors--essentially identical to the reactors
that were destroyed at Fukushima, that are operational in the United
States.'' The petitioner makes the following statement: ``Not only can
the NRC no longer dismiss such accidents in the U.S., the NRC must
instead assume that such accidents can occur in the U.S. and even,
given the history of the nuclear age that large nuclear accidents are
occurring at a much greater frequency than previously postulated, the
NRC--at least for emergency planning purposes if nothing else--must
assume that such accidents will occur in the U.S.''
Natural Disasters and Emergency Response Planning
The petitioner states that ``[n]atural disasters have become
increasingly prevalent in recent years causing concerns for nuclear
reactors that are susceptible to various weather phenomena and
disasters.'' The petitioner asserts that ``[c]urrent NRC emergency
planning regulations do not reflect that natural disasters can both
cause nuclear accidents and/or may occur concurrently with nuclear
accidents.'' The petitioner requests the following:
Emergency response planning for nuclear facilities must
incorporate regionally-relevant initiating and concurrent natural
disasters as a regular part of emergency exercises, to assure the
most effective possible emergency response in the event of a nuclear
accident triggered by or complicated by a natural disaster. For this
reason, we propose that every other emergency exercise include a
scenario that includes a regionally-relevant initiating and
concurrent natural disaster. By ``regionally relevant'' we mean that
plans should be made and exercises undertaken for the type of
natural disaster most likely to affect a given licensee site * * *.
However, for areas that may be affected by more than one type of
natural disaster * * * each exercise should include a different
regionally relevant scenario.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of April 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-10314 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P