ML20044C445
| ML20044C445 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/26/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR12339, RULE-PRM-50-58 NUDOCS 9303230046 | |
| Download: ML20044C445 (11) | |
Text
'
= FFM ' 50 (5$k[2 93V
- n a.ite
[M56-01-P].
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO!f g p5 g 10 CFR PART 50
[
[ Docket No. PRM-50-58]
~
Virginia Electric and Power Company;.
Filing of a Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[
- r ACTION:
Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking.
SUMMARY
The Virginia Electric and Power Company has submitted-a-petition for rulemaking requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory.
j Commission (NRC) amend its current regulations governing domestic-licensing of production and utilization facilities, as.necessary,-
to change the frequency of required emergency planning exercises-to biennially instead of annually.
The proposed amendment.would require each licensee to conduct, at each site, an integrated-exercise every 2 years and to otherwise ensure that their.
1.
emergency response capabilities are maintained during the 2-year interval.
The petitioner believes'that the. requirement for each licensee at each~ site to annually conduct'an emergency plan exercise.is but one of many indicators designed'to provide _
i i
reasonable assurance that_ actions can and will be taken during an_
l emergency situation that will provide-for.the health and safety--
of,the public.
s l3 'f3 i
I DATES:
Submit comments by (60 days following publication in the-Federal Register).
Comments received after this;date will be
~
considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance:of 9303230046 930226~
f' l3D -
3o-5g PDR-
.g.
.\\\\.
PDR PRM-
..___am
-. = - -
consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSEES:
Submit comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
For a copy of the petition, write Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, Washington, DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael T.
Lesar, Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom' of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone:
(301) 492-7758 or Toll Free:
800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Virginia Electric and Power Company.
The petition was-assigned Docket No. PRM-50-58 on December 16, 1992.
The petitioner has requested that the NRC amend-Appendix E,Section IV, F.2.,
to 10 CFR Part 50, " 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 2
4 require each licensee to conduct a biennial integrated 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 provids 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 petitioner quotes 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,'Section IV, F.2., which states that "each licensee at each site shall-annually exercise its emergency plan."
The petitioner contends that although not explicitly defined in the rule, this statement has been interpreted throughout the industry to require that each licensee at each site annually conduct an integrated exercise which will be evaluated by the NRC.
The petitioner indicates that regulations governing the frequency of State and local emergency planning exercises have been in place since 1984.
According to the petitioner, these regulations require a biennial exercise of State and' local emergency plans.
Therefore, the petitioner contends that the' requirement for an annual integrated exercise for the onsite organization is inconsistent and must be clarified.
The petitioner states that emergency preparedness programs throughout the industry are designed to achieve and maintain an t
adequate level of emergency response capability.
As defined by j
NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1,
" Criteria for Preparation and 3
F
.,s se
-a._-.-
l
.i Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and
[
Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," a joint Nuclear-l Regulatory Commission / Federal Emergency Management Agency l
i 1
(NRC/ FEMA) report published in November 1980, an exercise is an' l,
event that tests the integrated capability and major portions of the basic elements existing within emergency preparedness plans l
~I and organizations.
The petitioner contends, therefore, that an exercise is designed to merely confirm the level of response.- As 4
confirmation, an annual exercise is not necessary to achieve the i
underlying intent of the rule which is to attain an acceptable ~
level of emergency preparedness.
Further, because the annual exercise is the primary mechanism presently used by the NRC to
-l evaluate readiness, the resources dedicated to this event are naturally more focused on exercise performance than on emergency--
preparedness.
The petitioner states that because of the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program,Lthe annual j
graded exercise merely represents a separate means for the NRC to evaluate the licensee's performance.
The petitioner believes that the graded exercise has, in effect, become an'end.unto 3
i itself.
-l The petitioner states that the response of offsite response:
organizations during exercises performed over the-past 8 years.
i
' Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent' i
of Documents, U.S." Government Printing Office,1P.
0.
Box 37082,.
Washington, DC 20013-7082.
Copies areLalso available.from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
- l Springfield, TUL 22161.
A copy is also available for inspection and/or copying at-the NRC Public Document Room,~2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
4 i
.t
I has demonstrated that.a biennial frequency is' sufficient to
'l provide reasonable assurance to protect the health and safety of l
I the public.
During this time, there has been no indication of a need to increase the frequency of the demonstration..The petitioner states further that although it is recognized that the l
Commission retained the annual frequency requirement for licensees when it amended its regulations in 1984 to allow State and local governments to participate in emergency preparedness exercises every 2 years, the request to amend 10 CFR Part-50 is implicitly supported by.another part of the Code of Federal f
i Reculations.
The petitioner contends that regulations issued by l
FEMA at 44 CFR 350.9, by virtue of the stated requirements for offsite response organizations, recognize that, within the j
t context of that regulation, the biennial conduct of an exercise j
is sufficient to demonstrate that protective measures can'and will be.taken in the event of.an accident, thereby providing
.j reasonable assurance of the health and safety of the public.
I Further, it is.noted that provisions for giving the States and.
I local response organizations the opportunity to participate in f
the licensee's drill and exercise program could be easily l
i accommodated independent of petitioner's proposed rule change.
The: petitioner states that technological advancements and-applications have served to greatly enhance and_ automate accident-assessment activities employed during an emergency'responseifor
{
both the licensee (through the use of. Safety Parameter Display r
System and dose assessment computer models)' and the' Federal
'l l.l 5_
i
.Il
Government (through the use of the Emergency Response Data System and RASCAL, which is a computer dose. assessment nodel).
Improvements to equipment and facilities and programmatic t
enhancements within the nuclear emergency preparedness discipline over the past decade have elevated the level of response
^
capability throughout the industry.
As evidence, the petitioner refers to the results of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program, a mechanism employed by the NRC to assess, among other things, emergency preparedness indicators.
The petitioner indicates that during the period between 1980 and 1992, the industry-averaged SALP rating for emergency preparedness improved from 2.29 to 1.26.
The overall average for emergency preparedness SALP ratings for this 12-year period is 1.61.
The Petitioner The petitioner is a U.
S.
commercial nuclear power. reactor licensee for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The petitioner states that emergency planning regulations, promulgated as a result of the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, govern virtually all aspects of a licensee's emergency preparedness program and that they have done much to lay the basis for a structured formal response capability.
The petitioner further states that naintenance and verification of emergency response capability _are accomplished through programs that ensure the adequacy and 6
i
4 effectiveness of plans, procedures, facilities, equipment, response personnel, and performance demonstrations.
The petitioner focuses the petition on the need to conduct an annual exercise to ensure the adequacy of the emergency response capability.
The petition is based on the petitioner's belief that the annual exercise is only one of many indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can and will be taken during an emergency situation that will protect the health and safety of the public.
The petitioner believes that the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 would do nothing to undermine the provisions already in place for ensuring that identified deficiencies resulting from f
the conduct of an exercise are corrected.
Further, both 10 CFR
- 50. 47 (b) (14 ) and Appendix E,Section IV, F.4., would remain unchanged.
Need for the Suggested Amendments The petitioner states the current' annual testing requirement of a licensee's emergency response capability exceeds the threshold needed for determining the adequacy of the level of response.
Therefore, the adoption of a biennial demonstration frequency would allow an increase in cost efficiency for industry and the Federal Government.
Emergency preparedness exercises conducted in 1990 and 1991 have averaged a total of approximately-
$20,000 per inspection in NRC fees for the Virginia Electric and Power Company.
The petitioner estimates that each exercise costs 7
4 approximately $200,000 in resource commitments for the company.
The approximately 450 personnel required for each exercise could be more effectively utilized in their normal function rather than by participating in an unneeded test of response capability.
Furthermore, the petitioner states that, based on i
experience, approximately 750 staff hours are expended during the 1
development of an exercise scenario.
Emergency planning 1
resources, therefore, could be more effectively applied to the l
development and maintenance of emergency preparedness activities rather than exercise demonstration activities such as exercise scenario development, controller organization preparations, l
organizational impact evaluation, and facility availability determination (e.g., control room simulator time).
The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety.
The petitioner has identified a number of issues associated with the current requirement to conduct an emergency plan exercise annually as grounds for change.
The issues are as follows:
(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).
8
(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 program implementation.
(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 more effectively utilized 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 more effectively utilized to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness activities.-
)
e i
9 i
[
3 r
The Solution The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations governing domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, as necessary, to change the requirement that each licensee exercise its emergency plans for each site biennially.
i rather than annually and to otherwise ensure that its emergency response capability is maintained during the 2-year interval.
The petitioner requests that the NRC modify the existing regulation to provide greater clarification by-explicitly defining the requirement.
l f
The Petitioner's Suggested Amendments Petitioner requests that the NRC --
1.
Amend Section IV, paragraph F.2.,
of Appendix E to 10-CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to read as follows:
"Each licensee at each site shall conduct an integrated exercise every 2 years.
The licensee shall take actions necessary to ensure the emergency response capabilities are maintained during the 2-year interval."
i 2.
. Amend Section IV, paragraph F. 3. (f), of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 to read as follows:
" Licensees shall enable any State or local government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate _in exercises when requested by such State or local government."
j l
10 t
i
9 l
3.
Revise Section IV, paragraph F.2.,
of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 to provide greater clarification regardless of any 1
action taken to amend the existing rule.
Although not explicitly defined in the regulation, it has been interpreted throughout the industry that the regulation requires each licensee to annually conduct, at each site, an integrated exercise that will be evaluated by the NRC.
Requests for Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing discussion.
L Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this $bk-day of February 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
f
-)
g (Samuel J.
Chil}'.,
Secretary of the Commission.
11
.