[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30129-30132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15155]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 30129]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
RIN 3150-AF20
Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and
Preparedness Exercise Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its
emergency planning regulations. This amendment allows greater
flexibility in the licensee's emergency preparedness training
activities in the 2-year period between biennial full-participation
exercises. The amendment preserves the requirement that each licensee,
at each site, conduct an emergency preparedness exercise biennially,
with full participation by State and local governments that are within
the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ); reduces the
required frequency of exercising the licensee's onsite emergency plan
from annual to biennial; requires licensees to ensure that adequate
emergency response capabilities are maintained between biennial
exercises by conducting drills, at least one of which must involve some
of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency
response capabilities; and requires licensees to continue enabling
State and local governments that are in the plume exposure pathway
emergency planning zones (EPZs) to participate in drills. With this
amendment, the Commission is granting, in part, a petition for
rulemaking submitted by the Virginia Electric Power Company on December
9, 1992 (PRM-50-58).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-6534); E-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC received a petition for rulemaking submitted on December 9,
1992, by the Virginia Electric Power Company that was assigned Docket
No. PRM-50-58. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend, Section
IV.F.2., of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, ``Emergency Planning and
Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,'' to change the
requirement that each site exercise its emergency plan biennially
rather than annually. The petitioner's proposed amendment would have
required each licensee to conduct a biennial full participation
exercise of the emergency plan at each site and to take actions
necessary to ensure that its emergency response capability is
maintained during the 2-year interval. The petitioner believes that the
annual graded exercise is but one of many indicators designed to
provide reasonable assurance that actions can and will be taken during
an emergency situation that will provide for the health and safety of
the public. The NRC published a notice of receipt for the petition on
March 4, 1993 (58 FR 12341). A total of 32 comment letters were
received and considered when developing a proposed rule concerning the
issues raised by the petitions.
A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19002). Public comments were
requested by July 13, 1995. A total of 18 comment letters were
received, of which 12 utilities, 2 State emergency management agencies,
and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) supported the proposed rule
change. One State emergency management agency and an environmental
group opposed the proposed rule change. One letter received from a
State emergency management agency had no comment on the proposed rule
change.
NRC Response to Public Comments
The comment letters that were received provided many thought-
provoking and constructive comments. The Commission's evaluation of and
response to these comments is presented in the following section.
Issue 1. While the biennial exercise provides the opportunity for
broad based State and local participation in exercising offsite plans
and procedures, the annual graded utility exercises enhance the
biennial exercise process by providing State liaison personnel and
their utility counterparts the opportunity to remain proficient. A 2-
year gap will lessen proficiency.
Response. It is clearly not the Commission's intent to lessen the
proficiency at any level of the emergency planning organization (onsite
or offsite) with the rule change. The Commission believes that
interaction and training problems that might arise as a result of
deleting the annual onsite exercise would be resolved by requiring
licensees to enable any State or local Government to participate in the
licensee's drills when requested by the State or local Government. The
Commission is confident that, if a State governmental emergency
response agency feels the need to participate in a drill that would
require specific offsite interaction and decisionmaking capability, the
licensee would accommodate the State agency's request within the
framework of the drills that the licensee conducts throughout the 2-
year period between the biennial full participation exercise. In fact,
a State who was originally against granting the petition for rulemaking
because of similar concerns stated the following in their comment on
the proposed rule.
``We were among those initially opposed to the Virginia Electric
Power Company petition that prompted this rule change, primarily
because of a perceived potential for a diminution of emergency
preparedness capability on the part of licensees. However, we
acknowledge that the compromise embodied in the Commission's
proposed rule change offers adequate assurance that ongoing licensee
emergency preparedness activities will continue at a reasonable
level. Because of the number of licensees and the capacity of the
State's emergency response organizations, when appropriate (this
State) will invoke the language of the proposed rule change that
requires licensees to `* * * enable any State or local government
located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the
licensee's drills when requested by such State or local government.'
''
Issue 2. County, State, and utility emergency preparedness will
degrade under a biennial schedule. Mini-drills will not take the place
of annual
[[Page 30130]]
exercises as now constituted. Further, States have been encouraging
more Federal exercise participation by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and NRC. The proposed change would cut back on the
opportunities to test current personnel and train new personnel.
Response. The Commission disagrees. The rule change does not
require ``mini-drills'' to replace annual exercises. The rule change
does require that ``the licensee shall take actions necessary to ensure
that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained * * * by
conducting drills, including at least one drill involving a combination
of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite
emergency response capabilities.'' (10 CFR part 50, appendix E,
IV.F.2.b.)
Additionally, the opportunity to test and train new personnel is
provided by requiring that ``Licensees shall enable any State or local
Government * * * to participate in the licensee's drills.'' (Id at
IV.F.2.e.)
Issue 3. There is a need for clarity regarding State and local
participation in the exercises and drills that are proposed to replace
the annual NRC graded exercise. At 60 FR 19002; dated April 14, 1995,
licensees are charged to ``enable'' States and local governments to
participate in these exercises and drills, but at 60 FR 19006,
activating all response facilities (Technical Support Center, (TSC);
Operations Support Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations Facility
(EOF)) is not necessary. Because State and local governments coordinate
interaction through the EOF and Media Centers, clarification is
required. For example, perhaps the utility would be charged with
exercising the EOF and Media Centers as a part of at least one exercise
and/or drill each year.
Response. Based on the extensive coordination and cooperation
between licensees and State and local governments over the last 15
years, the Commission is confident that, if a State or local
governmental emergency response agency felt the need to participate in
a drill that included interaction at the EOF and Media Centers, the
licensee would accommodate the request within the framework of the
drills that the licensee conducts throughout the 2-year period between
the biennial full participation exercises.
Issue 4. Rather than eliminating any requirements, it is suggested
that each site initially be granted a waiver for ``off-year''
integrated exercises. The waiver would be effective only as long as an
acceptable level of emergency response capability is maintained.
Response. The Commission disagrees. The Commission believes that
the proposed rule would accomplish the commenter's objective without
the extensive NRC resources that implementing the commenter's
suggestion would require.
Issue 5. The Commission does not appear to have addressed the
quantitative question about expected turnover rates that would be
important in determining whether biennial exercises could substantially
reduce local team skills.
Response. Please see the response to Issue 1. Additionally, the
Commission has always been and continues to be committed to the
principle that there exists ``reasonable assurance that adequate
protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
radiological emergency.'' If, this finding is jeopardized either at the
State or local governmental level, additional training would be
warranted and would be provided by participating in the drills the
licensee conducts between biennial exercises.
Issue 6. The Commission has not adequately addressed local
Government comments on the importance of regular exercises for
improving coordination and communication.
Response. The Commission did not receive any comments from local
governments relating to this petition for rulemaking. Nonetheless, the
Commission is confident that if a local Government wished to improve
its coordination and communication capabilities, licensees would
welcome its participation in one or more of the onsite drills that will
be conducted between the biennial exercises.
Issue 7. The Commission has not addressed the FEMA concern that
regular cooperation with offsite teams may play a critical role in
their preparedness, which may be especially important in view of the
potential role such teams may play as first responders in actual
emergencies.
Response. Prior to publishing the proposed rule, the Commission
received FEMA's assurance that their concerns with the petition for
rulemaking had been resolved. Nonetheless, regular cooperation between
offsite and licensee emergency response teams will be ensured by the
requirement that licensees enable any state or local Government within
the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone to participate in
the licensee's drills upon request.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is
resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety. The petitioner
has identified grounds for change for a number of issues associated
with the current requirement to conduct an emergency plan exercise
annually. The issues presented by the petitioner follow:
(1) The requirement to conduct an integrated annual exercise is not
clearly defined. Therefore, the regulation should be clarified.
(2) The existing regulation, 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, is
inconsistent with other regulations that govern the frequency of
offsite response organization integrated exercises (i.e., 44 CFR part
350).
(3) The performance of offsite response organizations during
biennial exercises has confirmed that a biennial frequency is
sufficient to provide the reasonable assurance finding.
(4) The existing regulation, 10 CFR 50.54(t), provides for an
independent review of the adequacy of the program.
(5) The existing requirement to conduct an annual exercise is not
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. A biennial
exercise is sufficient to provide an acceptable formal confirmation of
capability.
(6) Reconsideration of the requirement is warranted in light of the
completion and implementation of enhanced emergency preparedness
facilities, the current level of industry proficiency and performance,
and the increased industry sensitivity to emergency preparedness.
(7) Personnel could be utilized more effectively in their normal
professional function rather than by participating in a resource-
intensive integrated test that only serves to confirm the already
existing level of the response capability.
(8) Emergency planning resources could be utilized more effectively
to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness
activities.
Commission Response
The Commission believes that it is important, in light of public
comment, as well as the discussion provided in the petition, to clarify
NRC's intent (under the existing rule) that licensees need not conduct
annual exercises with scenarios that progress to severe core damage or
result in offsite releases. Historically, these scenarios were used in
both the biennial full-participation exercise of offsite emergency
plans and the annual exercise of the licensee's
[[Page 30131]]
onsite emergency plan; this is no longer necessary for the currently
required annual exercises of the licensee's onsite emergency plan.
Information Notice (IN) 87-54, ``Emergency Response Exercises,'' was
issued to clarify NRC intent in this regard and to provide detailed
guidance, specifically on the types of ``off-year'' training activities
that licensees can perform during the interval between the biennial
full participation exercises to maintain adequate EP response
capabilities and to satisfy the rule.
Some licensees have availed themselves of the flexibility afforded
by the IN 87-54 guidance to conduct realistic, interactive ``off-year''
training activities that simulate less severe events, such as a minor
fire, loss of electric power, or equipment failure, and focus on the
capability of the onsite emergency response organization to diagnose
problems and develop actions to successfully mitigate the scenario
event. However, as noted in the petition, many licensees continue to
employ severe accident scenarios in annual exercises of their onsite
emergency plans.
Accordingly, the Commission is revising Section IV.F.2.b. of 10 CFR
part 50, appendix E, to (1) reduce from annual to biennial the
frequency of exercising the licensee's onsite emergency plan (which may
be included in the biennial full participation exercise specified in
IV.F.2.c.) and (2) require licensees to conduct training drills,
including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the
principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response
capabilities. This drill would be conducted between biennial full
participation exercises to ensure that adequate emergency response
capabilities are maintained. The principal functional areas of
emergency response include activities such as management and
coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective
action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
This approach is consistent with a comment from one State that
favored the petition for rulemaking but preferred that some guidelines
be included in appendix E requiring plant specific internal exercises
during the ``off-year'' to ensure plant personnel familiarity with
their response plans rather than the vague expectancy that this
activity will be done. Furthermore, licensees would continue to enable
State and local governments in the plume exposure pathway EPZs to
participate in drills in the interval between exercises, thus,
preserving their training opportunities.
The Commission believes that the final rule may result in the
reallocation and more effective utilization of resources in some
licensees' emergency preparedness (EP) programs as they further the
development and maintenance of emergency preparedness capabilities
during the ``off-year'' periods. However, it is not clear that these
changes will result in significant overall cost savings. The Commission
cautions specifically against expectations that the final rule will
necessarily result in significant reductions in NRC inspection activity
concerning licensees' ``off-year'' EP maintenance activities. Also,
licensees will, upon request, submit scenarios for NRC review as may be
deemed necessary by NRC in support of future inspections.
Conclusion
Having considered the arguments presented by the petitioner as well
as evaluating all public comments received, and based on a further
understanding of the issues involved gained from 14 years of experience
evaluating licensee emergency preparedness exercises, the Commission
concludes that (1) the required frequency for exercising the licensee's
onsite emergency plan should be reduced from annual to biennial, (2)
the means by which licensees are expected to train and maintain their
emergency response capabilities and readiness in the 2-year interval
between evaluated exercises should be changed to require licensees to
conduct drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of
some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite
emergency response capabilities, and (3) opportunities for training of
State and local Government personnel must be preserved.
The principal functional areas of emergency response include
management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment,
protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and
corrective actions.
During the specified drills, activation of all of the licensee's
emergency response facilities (Technical Support Center (TSC),
Operations Support Center (OSC); and the Emergency Operations Facility
(EOF)) would not be necessary. Licensees would have the opportunity to
consider accident management strategies, supervised instruction would
be permitted, operating staff would have the opportunity to resolve
problems (success paths) rather than have controllers intervene, and
the drills could focus on onsite training objectives.
The final rule relieves licensees from the current requirement to
conduct a full formal exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan
annually, and gives licensees the flexibility to choose the activities
to be conducted in the 2-year period between biennial full-
participation exercises in order to maintain their emergency response
capabilities. Greater flexibility in the training of the onsite
emergency response organization can provide significant benefits to
some licensees. For example, licensees can eliminate the practice of
developing scenarios that proceed to severe core damage, offsite
releases, or to higher emergency classification levels. Licensees will
have greater opportunity to conduct realistic emergency response
training with supervised instruction that allows the operating staff to
consider accident management strategies, diagnose problems, and be
given credit for actions that would mitigate scenario events.
This approach is also responsive to public commenters who expressed
concern about a possible decrease in licensee training and readiness in
the period between biennial exercises. Under this approach, licensees
will still be required to conduct emergency response training and
drills of the onsite emergency response organization, as well as
provide training opportunities to State and local Government personnel
during the interval between biennial exercises. The final rule
completes NRC action in response to PRM-50-58. The final rule grants
the petitioner's request that the frequency of required onsite
emergency response plan exercises be reduced from annual to biennial.
Additionally, 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1) is being revised in order to
correct a typographical error that appeared in the 1993 edition of
Title 10, Parts 0 to 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In the 1993
edition, the word ``protection'' was substituted for ``protective
measures'' in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). This action corrects this paragraph
to read as follows: ``* * * reasonable assurance that adequate
protective measures can and will be taken * * *''
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10
CFR part 51, subpart A, that this rule is not a major Federal action
significantly
[[Page 30132]]
affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore, an
environmental impact statement is not required. The rule will update
and clarify the emergency planning regulations relating to exercises.
It does not involve any modification to any plant or revise the need
for or the standards for emergency plans. There is no adverse effect on
the quality of the environment. The environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based
are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L
Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget approval Number 3150-0011.
Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available
for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be
obtained from Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; Telephone: (301) 415-6534.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The final rule updates and clarifies the
emergency planning regulations relating to exercises at nuclear power
plants. Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition
of small business in Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632), the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business
Administration in 13 CFR part 121, or the Commission's Size Standards
published at 56 FR 56671 (November 6, 1991). As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission
hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Backfit Analysis
The final rule clarifies the intent of the existing regulation and
facilitates greater flexibility in licensees' conduct of ``off-year''
emergency response training activities. This action does not seek to
impose any new or increased requirements in this area. The changes
permit, but do not require, licensees to change their existing
emergency plans and procedures to employ scenarios in ``off-year''
training or drills that do not go to severe core damage or result in
offsite exposures. No backfitting is intended or approved in connection
with this final rule change.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria,
reporting and record keeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is adopting the
following amendments to 10 CFR part 50.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
2. In Sec. 50.47, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.47 Emergency plans.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no
initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued
unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance
that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of
a radiological emergency. No finding under this section is necessary
for issuance of a renewed nuclear power reactor operating license.
* * * * *
3. Appendix E to part 50 is amended by revising section IV, F.
paragraphs 2.b., and e. to read as follows:
Appendix E--Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and
Utilization Facilities
IV. Content of Emergency Plans
F. Training
* * * * *
2. * * *
b. Each licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of its
onsite emergency plan every 2 years. The exercise may be included in
the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph 2.c. of
this section. In addition, the licensee shall take actions necessary to
ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained
during the interval between biennial exercises by conducting drills,
including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the
principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response
capabilities. The principal functional areas of emergency response
include activities such as management and coordination of emergency
response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and
plant system repair and corrective actions. During these drills,
activation of all of the licensee's emergency response facilities
(Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC), and
the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)) would not be necessary,
licensees would have the opportunity to consider accident management
strategies, supervised instruction would be permitted, operating staff
would have the opportunity to resolve problems (success paths) rather
than have controllers intervene, and the drills could focus on onsite
training objectives.
* * * * *
e. Licensees shall enable any State or local Government located
within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the
licensee's drills when requested by such State or local Government.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, MD., this 10th day of June, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-15155 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
