ML19277A826
| ML19277A826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/25/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19277A827 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-PIA, TASK-SE SECY-82-130, NUDOCS 8204070582 | |
| Download: ML19277A826 (31) | |
Text
>r g %g 9
5y,.,
f Ti2CEgyl39 h
?w ? m9% @}
g u.sQ,l 5
n March 25,1982
' LSECY-82/130 3,
POLICY ISSUE N
(Affirmation)
For:
The Commissioners Froni:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E - FREQUENCY OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval for publication in the Federal Register of a proposed amendment that would provide alternatives relative to the required frequency of full-scale emergency preparedness exercises.
Category:
This paper covers a minor policy matter.
Discussion:
At a briefing on February 4, 1982, the Commission discussed SECY-81-629, which proposes a rule change that would reduce the required frequency of full-scale emergency preparedness exercises.
SECY-81-629 outlined an NRC staff and a FEMA proposal to reduce the required frequency of exercises from annually to biennially.
The rationale for this proposal was based on the conclusion that annual exercises were not cost effective.
The NRC staff, FEMA, State and local governmental representatives were convinced that if the proposed amendment (in SECY-81-629) became a final rule, the available resources (on the Federal, State, local and licensee level) could be more effectively focused on the more pertinent issues and problems in establishing and maintaining an upgraded and effective day-to-day state of emergency preparedness.
This would aid in ensuring appropriate protection of the health and safety of the public.
After discussing the staff's proposal, the Commission directed the staff to redraft the proposed Federal Register Notice e.nd include another alternative (Alternative B) which would essen-tially continue to require the annual full participation exercise unless a recommendation is made by FEMA that all of the. elements in the emergency plans had been exercised in a satisfactory manner and therefore up to a two year period could elapse before the next exercise.
Based on this FEMA recommendation, a similar finding could be made by NRC.
The original staff proposal Contacts:
MJamgochian 443-5942 BGrimes 492-4614 8204070582 820325 CF SUBJ p
i The Commissioners 2
(Alternative A) has been modified to make explicit that, although the basic frequency under this alternative would be biennial, FEMA would recommend more frequent full-scale exercises (or components thereof) if significant deficiencies were observed in the exercise.
This paper responds to the Commission's direction by providing a proposed Federal Register Notice which solicits public comment on both alternatives.
This direction is documented in the memo-randum from the Secretary of the Commission, dated February 16, 1982 (M820204A).
The NRC and FEMA staffs have met with the Interorganizational Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the State Radiation Control Directors Association and have received its concurrence with Alternative A of the proposed regulation.
Because some 10AC members expressed concern that single site States might need more than a biennial exercise in certain instances, a provision was added to require the licensee to conduct exercises annually with full State participation if requested by the State.
It should be noted that this provision establishes a precedent in that it permits a State to require the conduct of joint exercises with greater frequency than required by NRC.
In the staff's view, this provision is desirable--in light of the strong State role in emergency preparedness--as a means of preserving the optimal frequency (once a year) in those States that are willing and able to participate that often, while granting relief (biennial exercises) in situations where annual State participation is not possible.
It should be noted that FEMA still favors Alternative A.
A letter from Mr. Giuffrida (FEMA) dated March 8, 1982, which proposes a frequency consistent with Alternative A, is attached as Enclosure 5.
Cost Estimate:
The staff anticipates that there will be no additional costs to the NRC, State and local governments or to licensees associated with the proposed rule change.
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve:
The publication for public comment of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register (Enclosure 1).
2.
Note:
a.
That apprc:..iate Congressional committees will be noti-fied of toe proposed rule (draft Congressional letter is Enclosure 2).
o The Commissioners 3
b.
That the ACRS is being informed of the proposed rule.
c.
That, pursuant to S 51.51(d)(3) of the Commission's regulations, an environmental impact statement, nega-tive declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the subject proposed amendment because there is no substantive or significant environmental impact.
d.
That the Federal Register notice contains a statement that the NRC certifies that the proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, S 605(b).
e.
That the Federal Register notice contains a statement that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the NRC has made a preliminary determination that the proposed rule does not impose new recordkeeping, infor-mation collection, or reporting requirements.
f.
That the staff will directly notify affected applicants, licensees, State governments, and interested persons of the proposed rule.
g.
That a public announcement of the proposed rule will be made.
h.
That a Preliminary Value/ Impact Analysis has been prepared (Enclosure 3).
i.
The staff's conclusions, set forth in Enclosure 4, provide the analysis called for by the Periodic and Systematic Review of the Regulations.
The criteria used were derived from Executive Order 12044, which was rescinded on February 17, 1981, by Executive
e The Commissioners 4
Order 12291 (see memorandum dated February 27, 1981, from L. Bickwit, General Counsel to the Commission).
This approach is proposed as an interim procedure until the Commission decides what to do in response to Executive Order 12291.
lliam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2.
Draft Congressional Letter 3.
Preliminary Value/ Impact Analysis 4.
TMI Action Plan Review 5.
Mr. Giuffrida Ltr dtd March 8, 1982 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Monday, April 12, 1982.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT April 5, 1982, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for consideration at an open meeting during the week of March 29, 1982.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations Exec Legal Director ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat
e 6
ENCLOSURE 1
[7590-01]
N'JCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES:
FREQUENCY AND PARTICIPATION OF EXERCISES AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory C6mmission.
ACTION:
Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulatiuns in order to modify the frequency of emergency preparedness exercises and the extent of participation therein now required for nuclear power reactor facilities.
- Comments DATES:
The comment period expires received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
A9 DRESSES:
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments and suggestions on the proposal rule change and/or the supporting Value/
Impact analysis to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of the Value/ Impact analysis and of the comments received by the Commission may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- Insert date 30 days after publication in Federal Register.
1
[7590-01]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Human Factors Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 (Telephone:
301-443-5942).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 19, 1980, the NRC published revised emergency planning regulations, which became effective on November 3, 1980 (45 FR 55402).
The regulations required nuclear power reactor licensees to submit upgraded emergency plans by January 2,1981, to submit implementing procedures by March 1, 1981, and to implement the plans by April 1, 1981.
With regard to conducting exercises of emergency plans, Appendix E,-
Section IV.F., of 10 CFR Part 50 now requires:
"...Each licensee shall exercise at least annually the emergency plan for each site at which it has one or more power reactors licensed for operation.
Both full-scale and small-scale exercises shall be conducted and shall include participation by appropriate State and local government agencies as follows:
1.
A full-scale exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State, and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory publ e participation shall be conducted; a.
For each site at which one or more power reactors are located and licensed for operation, at least once every five years and at a frequency which will enable each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in at least one full-scale exercise per year and which will enable each State within the ingestion pathway to participate in at least one full-scale exercise every three years.
b.
For each site at which a power reactor is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued after the effective date of this amendment, within one year before the issuance of the operating license for full power, which will enable each State 2
[7590-01]
and local government within the plume exposure EPZ and each State within the ingestion pathway EPZ to participate."
The Commission believes that the regulations determining the frequency of emergency preparedness exercises, as currently required in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, should be modified in order to provide greater flexibility in implementation.
Since the current regulation was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1980, the NRC and FEMA staffs have observed and evaluated more than 50 exercises around nuclear power reactors.
These exercises have included the participation of the licensee, State and local governmental officials, and in some instances, have also included the participation of Federal officials.
It has become apparent that an unnecessarily disproportionate amount of Federal, State, local government and licensee resources is being expended in order to conduct and evaluate the emergency preparedness exercises at the presently required trequency.
As a result of this substantial expenditure of resources for these emergency preparedness exercises, less resources are available to estab-lish and maintain the very important day-to-day upgraded state of emer-gency preparedness.
In addition, necessary resources for correcting any deficiencies that surface during the exercises are being reduced.
The Commission is considering two alternatives.
In Alternative A, the frequency of full participation exercises would be reduced from annually to biennially.
Any deficiencies identified during a biennial exercise would be retested in limited or full participation exercises to assure that all elements in the emergency plans can be adequately implemented. Alternative B retains the presently required annual full participation exercise, with the proviso that if all elements in 3
[?590-01]
the emergency plan are performed in a satisfactory manner during the annual exercise, FEMA may recommend that another exercise is not warranted for up to two years.
Based on the FEMA recommendation, NRC could then make a similar finding.
Neither of these proposed alternatives would relax in any manner the onsite exercise that each licensee is required to conduct, which includes exercising control room, technical support center and emergency operating facility functions.
A partial or full participation exercise would satisfy the licensee's annual requirement for an on-site exercise.
The minimum frequency of exercises in which a State would partic-ipate for a particular site would be relaxed from the present once every five years to once every seven years.
This change will assure that States with the greater number of nuclear power plant sites will not be required to exercise in a full participation mode more than about once a year. The frequency of Federal participation at each site would also be extended to once every seven years to be consistent with the proposed change in the State participation frequency.
Some Interorganizational Advisory Committee (IOAC) members expressed concern that single site States might need more than a biennial exercise in certain instances, a provision was added to require the licensee to conduct exercises annually with full State participation if requested by the State.
It should be noted that this provision establishes a precedent in that it permits a State to require the conduct of joint exercises with greater frequency than required by NRC.
In the Commission's view, this provision is desirable, in light of the strong State role in emergency preparedness.
4
[7590-01]
)
(
\\
A new footnote to Section IV.F o Appendix E is also proposed which would specifically provide for the use of site-specific cuntrol room simulators near the site to aid in realisin of reactor parameters and their interplay in the scenario.
The Commission believes that hoption of either alternative will more effectively focus available resources on the pertinent issues and problems in establishing and maintaining an upgraded and effective day-to-day state of emergency preparedn'ess.
The added flexinility that either alternative would provide would assist in ensuring appropriate protection of the health and safety of the public.
Because FEMA is directly involved in the evaluation of offsite emergency preparedness exercises and, therefore, would be affected oy the promulgation of this proposed rule change, the NRC staff consulted with the FEMA staff during the development of this notice.
FEMA recommends a frequency consistent with Alternative A in the prgoosed rule change, The following tables provide further information relathe to implementation of the new proposed baseline exercise frequencies in Alternative A.
Exercises could be more frequent than indicated on these tables if recommended by FEMA and found appropriate by NRC.
The tables also illustrate the minimum frequency that could' result from Alter-native B for the case whern FEMA yerommended and the NP.0=.ude a finding that the results of each exercise are e,uch that a subsequent exercise is not warranted for two years.
(
5 j
\\
[7590-01]
rc:t mecu m ivz a EXAMPLE EXERCISE _FREOU'iNCIES AFOR '/ARIOUS NUMBERS OFNUCLEARSITESHAVINGPLUMEEXF05ULEPIsWITHINASTATE F
= Full participation by State and local governmental agencies and licenseo P
= Full participation by licensee and local governmental agencies and partial participation by States within plume exposure'EPZ Blank or L = Licensee only Case 1 One site with plume exposure EPZ within one state S
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Fj (4F,3L)
A F
F F
Case 2 Twe. sites
- with both plume exposure EPZ s within one state 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
A F
F P
P (4F,3P,7L)
B P
F F
Case 3 Three sites with all plume exposure EPZ s within one state S
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 A
F P
P P
B P
F F
(4F, 7P,10L)
C P
F P
P
^wnere there are two licensees at one location, these are considered as two sites. Where one licensee has more than one reector at one location, it is considered as one site.
6
[7590-01]
Case 4 Four sites with ell plume exposure EPZ's within one state 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
A F
P P
P B
P F
P C
P F
P P
(4F,10P,14L)
D P
P F
Case 5 Five sites with all plume exposure EPZ s within one state 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 A
F P
P P
B P
F P
C P
F P
P (5F,13P,17L)
D P
P F
E P
P P
F Case 6 Seven sites with all plume exposurc EPZ s within one state S
1 2
3 4
5_
6 7
A F
P P
P B
F P
P C
P F
P P
(7F,ISP,24L)
D P
F P
E P
P F
P F
P P
F G
P P
P F
7
tis 50-01]
Case 7 Example for Boundary Sites - Three States 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
A F
P P
P 1,2 B
P F
P 3,1 C2 P
F P
F Da F
P F
E 1 P
F P
P F2
.P P
F subscript 1 = State 1 4 sites (4F,10P) subscript 2 = State 2 2 sites (3F,SP) subscript 3 = State 3 2 sites (3F,3P)
(21LTotal) 8
[7590-01]
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
S 605(b), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule concerns the frequency and extent of conducting full-scale exercises of emergency plans for nuclear power plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. SS 2133, 2134(b). The electric utility companies owning and operating these nuclear power plants are dominant in their service areas and do not fall within the definition of a small business found in Section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
S 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121.
Accordingly, there would be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L.96-511), the NRC has made a determination that this proposed rule would not impose new recordkeeping, information collection, or reporting requirements.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is contemplated.
9
[7590-01]
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES The authority citation for Part 50 reads as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239);
secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1243, 1244, 1245 (42 US.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted.
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Section 50.78-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Sections 50-100-50.102 issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), f 50.41(i) issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(i); SS 50.70, 50.71, and 50.78 issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)),
and the laws referred to in Appendices.
1.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F, is revised to read as follows:*
APPENDIX E - EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES a
a F.
Training The program to provide for (1) the training of employees and exercising, by periodic drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific emergency
- This regulation is typed in comparative text in order to assist in review.
This will be deleted when it is submitted to the Federal Register for publication.
10
[7590-01]
response duties and (2) the participation in the training and drills by other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency shall be described. This shall include a description of specialized initial training and periodic retraining programs to be provided to each of the following categories of emergency personnel:
a.
Directors and/or coordinators of the plant emergency organization; b.
Personnel responsible for accident assessment, including control room shift personnel; c.
Radiological monitoring teams; d.
Fire control teams (fire brigades);
e.
Repair and damage control teams; f.
First aid and rescue teams; g.
Medical support personnel; h.
Licensee's headquarters support personnel; i.
Security personnel.
In addition, a radiological orientation training program shall be made available to local services personnel, e.g.,
local Civil Defense, local law enforcement personnel, local news media persons.
The plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of emergency preparedn:tss exercises.
Exercises shall test the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and methods, test emergency equipment and communication networks, test the public notification system, and ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties.
11
[7590-01]
EEach-licensee-shaii-exercise-et-ienst-annualiy-the-emergency pian fer-each-site-et which-it-has-ene-or-mere pewer-reacters-iicensed-for operation:--Beth-feii-scale-and-smali-seaie-exercises-shali-be-conducted end shali-inciade participation-by-appropriate-State-and-iecai government-egencies-as-fellows:
ar---For each-site-at-which-ene-or-mere power-reneters-are-iecated and-iicensed-for-operation--at-ienst-ence-every-five years-and-at-a frequency which-wiii enabie-each-State-and-iecai government-within-the piume-exposure pathway-EPZ-to participate-in-at-ienst-ene-foli-scale exercise per year-and-which-wiii-enable-each-State-within-the-ingestien pathway-to participate-in-at-ienst-ene-feii scale-exercise-every-three years--]
1.
A full-participation 5 [-seaie] exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted [--b-] for each site at which a power reactor is locat~t for which the first operating license for that site is issued after the effective date of this amend-ment.
This exercise shall be conducted within one year before the issuance of the operating license for full power, which-wiii-enable and shall include participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure EPZ and each State within the ingestion pathway EPZ to participate.
12
[7590-01]
2.a.
Each licensee at each site shall exercise annually its emergency plan to test as much of the licensee emergency plan as is reasonably achievable.8 b.
Except as provided in paragraph c. below, the licensee exercises shall include participation by offsite governmental agencies at the following frequencies:
(i) at least [ Alternative A:
once every two years] [ Alternative B:
annually] with full participation 5 by local government agencies and with at least partial participation 7 by States within the plume exposure EPZs.
(ii) at least once every seven years with full participation by local government agencies within the plume exposure EPZ and full particpa-tion by States within the plume exposure and ingestion pathway EPZs.
5" Full participation" when used in conjunction with emergency preparedness exercises means all involved State and local offsite agencies shall physically atu actively take part in the exercise to test all major elements of the onsite and offsite plans without mandatory public participation.
6 Site specific Control room simulators located on or near the site may be used in iieu of the control room for exercises which do not require offsite agency participation.
Use of site specific simulators for the purpose of generating displays in the Technical Support Center TSC) and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) is acceptable for any exercise provided appropriate measures are taken to assure the reliability and availability of the TSC and EOF equipment should an actual event occur during such use.
7uPartial participation" when used in conjunction with emergency preparedness exercises means involved State and local offsite agencies shall actively take part in the exercise enough to test direction and control functions.
" Direction and control functions" means that the participant shall demonstrate (a) at least protective action decisionmaking, and (b) com-munications capabilities among affected State agencies, local agencies and the affected licensee.
13
[7590-01]
c.
[ Alternative A:
The exercises or components of exercises provided for in paragraph b. above shall be held more frequently than specified therein if necessary to enable full participation in an exercise at some site by each State within a plume exposure EPZ at least once every two years, or if requested by the State in which the site is located, or if recommended by FEMA and determined by the NRC to be appropriate.]
[ Alternative B: The exercises provided for in paragraph b. above may be held less frequently than annually if FEMA recommends that all elements in an emergency plan were performed satisfactorily during an exercise and that another exercise is not warranted for two years.
Based en this recommendation the Commission may make a finding that a period up to two years may elapse before another partial or full participation exercise must be conducted.]
3.
An initial exercise with full participation of State and local governmental agencies shall have been held by each licensee at each site prior to June 1,1982, except where two licensees interact with the same local governmental agency.
In that instance, one of the initial exercises shall hava been held before June 1, 1982 and one before September 1, 1982.
- 4. [(23] The plan shall [siso] describe provisions for involving Federal emergency response agencies in a full [seaie] participation emergency preparedness exercise by each licensee at [for] each site [,]
at which one or more power reactors are located and licensed for opera-tion [,] at least once every [5] seven years;
[( 33 -- A-s ma f i-s e ai e-exe rci s e-whi ch-te s ts-the-adeq e sey-of communicatien-iinks--establishes-that-response-agencies anderstand-the emergency-action-ieveis--and-tests-at-4 east-ene-ether-cempenent-(e g--
14
[7590-01]
medical-er-effsite-monitoring 3-of-the-effsite-emergency-response pian for-iicense--State--and-iecai-emergency pians-fer-jurisdictions-within the piume-exposare pathway-EPZ-shaii-be-conducted-at-each-site-et-which one-or-more power-reacters-are-ieented-and-iicensed-for-operatien-each year-at-faii-scaie-exercise-is-not-conducted-which-inveives-the-State (s) within-the pieme exposure pathway-EPZ-]
5.
All training, including exercises, shall provide for formal critiques in order to identify weak or deficient areas that need corrections.
Any weaknesses or deficiencies that are identified shall be corrected.
Significant deficiencies shall be subject to the provisions of 6 50.54(s)(2).
Dated at this day of 1982.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission 15
e 1
ENCLOSURE 2
DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee on is a copy of a notice of proposed rulen.3 king to be published in the Federal Register.
The Commission believes that the regulations that determine the frequency of emergency preparedness exercises and the extent of participation therein, as currently required in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, should be modified in order to providt greater flexibility in implementation.
Since the current regula-tion was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1980, the NRC and FEMA staffs have observed and evaluated more than 50 exercises around nuclear power reactors.
These exercises have included the participation of not only licensees, State and local governmental officials, but, in some instances, have also included the participation of Federal officials.
It has become apparent that an unnecer cily disproportionate amount of Federal, State, local government and licensee resources are being expended in order to conduct and evaluate the emergency preparedness exercises at the presently required frequency.
As a result of this substantial expenditure of resources for these emergency preparedness exercises, less resources are available to establish and maintain the very important day-to-day state of emergency preparedness.
In the proposed amendments, the Commission has identified two alternatives which it is considering.
In one alternative (Alternative A), the frequency of full participation exercises would be reduced from annually to biennially.
The second alternative (Alternative B) retains the presently required annual full participation exercise with the proviso that if all elements in the emergency plans are performed in a satisfactory manner during an exercise, FEMA may recommend that another exercise is not warranted for up to two years.
Based on FEMA's recommendation, NRC could then make a similar finding. This proposed rule change will not relax in any manner the presently required annual on-site exercise that each licensee must conduct.
1
The minimum frequency of State, local, and Federal participation at each site would also be extended.
If the proposed amendment becomes a final rule, the Commission is convinced that regulations will be flexible enough in order to assure that the available resources (on the Feoerni, State, local and licensee level) can be more effectively used to focus on the more pertinent issues and problems in establishing and maintaining an upgraded and effective day-to-day state of emergency preparedness. This will serve to aid in ensuring appropria'a protection of the health and safety of the public.
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2
e
.a e
ENCLOSURE 3
VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYf' 1.
PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Description The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations in order to modify the frequency of emergency preparedness exercises and the extent for participation therein now required for nuclear power reactor licensees.
- 1. 2 Need for Proposed Action On August 19, 1980, the NRC published revised emergency planning regulations, which became effective on November 3, 1980 (45 FR 55402).
The regulations required nuclear power reactor licensees to submit upgraded emergency plans by January 2,1981, to submit implementing procedures by March 1, 1981, and to implement the plans by April 1, 1981.
With regard to conducting exercises of emergency plans, Appendix E,Section IV.F, of 10 CFR Part 50 now rcquires:
"...Ecch licensee shall exercise at least' annually the emergency plan for each site at which it has one or more power reactors licensed for operation.
Both full-scale and small-scale exercises shall be conducted and shall include participation by appropriate State and local government agencies as follows:
1.
A full-scale exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State, and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted; a.
For each site at which one or more power reactors are located and licensed for operation, at least once every five years and at a frequency which will enable each State and local govern-ment within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in at least one full-scale exercise per year and which will enable each State within the ingestion pathway to participate in at least one full-scale exercise every three years.
b.
For each site at which a power reactor is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued after the effective date of this amendment, within one year before the issuance of the operating license for full power, which will 1
enable each State and local government within the plume exposure EPZ and each State within the ingestion pathway EPZ to participate."
The Commission believes that the regulations that determine the frequency of emergency preparedness exercises, as currently required in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, should be modified in order to provide greater flexibility in implementation.
Since the current regulation was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1980, the NRC and FEMA staffs have observed and evaluated more than 50 exercises around nuclear power reactors.
These exercises have included the participation of not only the licensee, State and local governmental officials, but, in some instances, have also included the participation of Federal officials.
It has become apparent that an unneces-sarily disproportionate amount of Federal, State, local government and licensee resources are being expended in order to conduct and evaluate the emergency preparedness exercises at the presently required frequency.
As a result of this substantial expenditure of resources for these emergency preparedness exercises, less resources are available to establish and maintain the very important day-to-day upgraded state of emergency preparedness.
In addition, necessary resources for correcting any deficiencies that surface during the exercises are being reduced.
In the proposed amendments, the Commission has identified two alterna-tives which it is considering.
In one alternative (Alternative A), the frequency of full participation exercises would be reduced from annually to biennially.
Any deficiencies that are identified during a biennial exercise would be retested in limited or full participation exercises until it is assured that all elements in the emergency plans can be adequately imple-mented.
The second alternative (Alternative B) retains the presently required annual full participation exercise with the proviso that if all elements in the emergency plans are performed in a satisfactory manner during the annual exercise, FEMA may recommend that another exercise is not warranted for up to two years.
Based on FEMA's recommendation, NRC could then make a similar finding.
Neither of these proposed alternatives would relax in any manner the onsite exercise that each licensee is required to conduct.
2
1.3 Value/ Impact of the Action 1.3.1 NRC The Commission believes that adoption of either alternative will more effectively focus available resources on the pertinent issues and problems in establishing and maintaining an upgraded and effective day-to-day state of emergency preparedness.
The added flexibility that either alternative would provide would assist in ensuring appropriate protection of the health and safety of the public.
The frequency of NRC participation in r' amergency preparedness exercise at each site would be extended from once'>**u 5 years to once every 7 years.
1.3.2 Other Government Agencies The minimum frequency of exercises with which a State would participate with a particular site would be relaxed from the present once every five years to once every seven years.
This change will assure that States with the greatest number of nuclear power plant sites will not be required to exercise in a full participation mode more frequently than an average of once a year.
The frequency of Federal participation at each site would also be extended to once every seven years to be consistent with the proposed change in the State participation frequency.
The proposed amendment would also relax the frequency with which local governments would be required to participate in emergency preparedness exercises.
This is especially true for local governments and for States with few reactor sites within their boundary.
1.3.3 Industry The proposed amendment will not greatly affect the industry since licensees will still be required to conduct an annual emergency preparedness exercise.
Licensees will save a limited amount of resources because their annual exercise may be less complex because they may not include the participation by State officials.
3
1.3.4 Public The proposed amendment will have negligible effect on the public as adequate emergency preparedness at and around nuclear power reactors will still be assured under the proposed regulations.
Likewise, public partici-pation in the exercises is not required but in many instances, small segments of the population have volunteered to participate.
1.4 Decision on the Action The proposed regulation amendment should be published in the Federal Register.
2.
TECHNICAL APPROACH Because the proposed amendment is of a non-technical nature, no technical alternative has been considered.
3.
PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES Potential NRC procedures that could be used to promulgate the action of the proposed amendment include the following:
(a)
Immediately effective final rule change Clearly a proposed amendment is the better alternative because it seeks public comment.
4.
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 NRC Authority The proposed amendment is intended to implement the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.
4
4.2 Need for NEPA Assessment Since the proposed amendment does not represent a major action, as defined by 10 CFR 6 51.5(a)(10) and does not effect the environment,, implementation of the proposed amendment does not require a NEPA assessment.
5.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR POLICY 4
These proposed amendment relates to the NRC emergency preparedness regulations, Regulatory Guide 1.101, Revision 2, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and NUREG-0696.
6.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS In summary, the proposed amendment is needed so that the regulations will be flexible enough to assure that the available resources can be more effectively used to focus on the pertinent issues and problems of establishing and maintain-ing an upgraded and effective day-to-day state of emergency preparedness.
This will serve to aid in ensuring appropriate protection of the health and safety of the public.
The conclusion is to proceed expeditiously with amending regulations as proposed.
I d
5
ENCLOSURE 4
TMI ACTION PLAN REVIEW The NRC has conducted a review of this proposed amendment to determine that it satisfies the applicable criteria contained in Task IV.G.2 of the NRC Action Plan Developed As A Result Of The TMI-2 Accident (NUREG-0660, May 1980).
Briefly, those criteria and the NRC's conclusions relative to each are as follows:
1.
The regulations are needed:
The proposed amendment is needed so that the regulations will be flexible enough to assure that the available resources can be more effectively used to focus on the pertinent issues and problems of establishing and maintaining an upgraded and effective day-to-day state of emergency preparedness.
This will serve to aid in ensuring appropriate protection of the health and safety of the public.
The conclusion is to proceed expeditiously with amending regula-tions as proposed.
2.
The direct and indirect effects of the regulation have been considered:
The Commission has fully considered the direct and indirect effects of the proposed amendment as set forth in the value impact analysis (Enclosure 3).
3.
Alternative approaches have been considered and the 1e'ast burdensome of the acceptable alternatives has been chosen:
The alternative approach to proposed rulemaking would be for the Commission to proceed with final rulemaking; the correct and least burdensome approach has been chosen.
4.
Public comments have been considered and an adequate response has been prepared:
The proposed rul'e changes are requesting public comments.
5.
The regulation is written so that it is understandable to those who must comply with it:
These proposed rule changes satisfy this criterion.
6.
An estimate has been made of the reporting burdens or recordkeeping requirements necessary for compliance with the regulation:
The proposed rule change does not increase any such burdens or requirements which may otherwise 1
exist, nor does it establish any new reporting burdens or recordkeeping requirements.
There would be some small reduction in the reporting burdens and recordkeeping requirements due to the reduced frequency of exercises.
7.
The name, address, and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency offical has been identified:
This is provided in the proposed Federal Register notice.
2
ENCLOSURE 5
r,Y Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 8
MAR 1982 Honorable Nunzio J. Palledino Chaiman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Caraission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Palladino:
During the past two years, 50 radiological energency preparedness exercises involving State and local offsite emergency preparedness have been conducted in 32 states.
Based on the review and critique of these exercises, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) believes it is now appropriate to adjust the frequency at which offsite emergency preparedness exercises take place. This position is further reinforced by the fact that State and local goverrments, in a context of their overall wus.chensive energency management responsibilities, actively participate on a regular basis in drills and exercises which relate to natural hazards as well as civil defense.
FEMA has completed a review of the language in our respective rules (10 CFR 50 (NRC) and 44 CFR 350 (FmA)) regarding frequency of exercises at nuclear power facilities and believes that certain changes are appropriate. These changes reflect five basic points:
1.
Each State which has a facility witflin its boundaries or within 10 miles (the plume Dnergency Planning Zone) of its t:cundaries shall fully exercise its radiological emergency response plan jointly with the facility and appropriate local jurisdiction (s) no less frequently than every two years.
m 2.
States with nore than three such facilities shall exercise core frequently as necessary in order to fully participate'with each facility at least once within a seven-year period.
3.
Each local jurisdiction which has a facility within its boundaries or within 10 miles (the plume Emergency Planning Zone) of its boundaries shall fully exercise its radiological emergency response plan jointly with the facility and the State (s) no less frequently than every two-years.
4.
In consultation with NRC, FEA will deter:rine the level and frequency for renedial drills and exercises.
5.
States in the ingestion Dnergency, Planning Zone of a facility shall exercise their plan not less than once within a seven-year pericd and in conjunction with a plume energency Planning Zone exercise for that facility.
f/d dh M [
2 Please note that ncthing in our language precludes the conduct of a full State and local exercise every p ar, if necessary, to ensure adequate preparedness, even in a State with only one fac.tlity.
Eiowever, as the Associate Director for StateJind Iocal Programs and Supprt, Mr. Iae M. Thcmas, indicated to the Ccnntission on February 4,1982, we feel that the basic two-year cycle w:Lll give us the option of zeroing in on specific jurisdictions as well as ccmponents of State.ard local levels of preparedness in need of improvement. While this may reduce the quantity of full-scale exercises, it nest certainly will improve the overall quality of preparedness by allowing State and local governments to work on problem areas identified in the scheduled exercises in much nere depth than an annual interval allows. This rodification in exercise scheduling has been discussed with State ard local governnents as well as with FEMA Regicnal Directors in the field. These parties not only support but are active advocates of the basic reduction in exercise frequency.
Delegation of authority by the President and Congress to the Director of FEMA has resulted in FEMA taking the lead role for detecninations of status of offsite energency plans and response related to radiological energencies.
In carrying out this role, FEMA reviews policy and programs on a continuing basis to insure that the quality of State and local preparedness is upgraded.
The frequency and evaluation of exercises is an integral part of this process.
We believe, therefore, that it is apprcpriate for the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission to rely on FEMA's best judgment in this closely related area of mutual concern.
Because public safety is a basic premise of energency preparedness, and since exercises are a systenatic way of denenstrating our preparedness capability, we agree that exercises are of critical importance to State and local governments as wil as to your licensees.
Ibwever, we would like to see such exercises be as meanirgful as possible to all participants.
It is to that end that the '
revised language has been prepared and the Ccnntission's support requested.
Sincerely, w
uis
. Gluffr' Director "NRC Staff Note: The NRC staff has discussed this letter with the FEMA staff and understands the above points are to be interpreted as follows:
(1) in item
- 1., read "... jointly with a_ facility"; (2) in item 3.,
read "...with the facility and at least enough of the State (s) plan to test direction and control functions no less frequently than every two years",,
./
{,, & & L 06 WW