ML20133J896

Proposed Rule for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies (Federal Register Notice) (85 Fr 28436)

ML20133J896
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/21/2020
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
FIRTH J/NMSS/MSST
References
85FR28436, STC-20-041
Download: ML20133J896 (31)

Text

28436 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. small and slow release of fission COMMISSION Nuclear Regulatory Commission, products. This proposed rule and Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: guidance could affect existing SMR and 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. non-LWR applicants and licensees as For additional direction on obtaining well as SMRs, non-LWRs, and NPUFs

[NRC-2015-0225] information and submitting comments, that would be licensed after the effective RIN 3150-AJ68 see Obtaining Information and date of the final rule. Those applicants Submitting Comments in the and licensees would have the option to Emergency Preparedness for Small SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of develop a performance-based EP Modular Reactors and Other New this document. program as an alternative to using the Technologies FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: existing, deterministic EP requirements Robert Beall, Office of Nuclear Material in 10 CFR part 50. This proposed rule AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Safety and Safeguards; telephone: (301) does not include within its scope Commission. 415-3874, email: Robert.Beall@nrc.gov; emergency planning, preparation, or ACTION: Proposed rule and guidance; or Eric Schrader, Office of Nuclear response for large LWRs, fuel cycle request for comment. Security and Incident Response; facilities,1 or currently operating non-telephone: 301-287-3789; email: power reactors. For the purposes of this

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Eric.Schrader@nrc.gov; both are staff of rule, large LWRs are reactors that are Commission (NRC) is proposing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory licensed to produce greater than 1,000 amend its regulations to include new Commission, Washington, DC 20555- megawatts thermal (MWt) power.

alternative emergency preparedness (EP) 0001.

requirements for small modular reactors B. Major Provisions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(SMRs) and other new technologies Major provisions of this proposed rule (ONTs), such as non-light-water reactors Executive Summary and guidance would include the (non-LWRs) and certain non-power addition of:

A. Need for the Regulatory Action

• A new alternative performance-production or utilization facilities (NPUFs). The new EP requirements The current EP requirements and based EP framework, including would acknowledge technological guidance, initially developed for large requirements for demonstrating effective advancements and other differences light-water reactors (LWRs) and for non- response in drills and exercises for from large LWRs that are inherent in power reactors, also referred to as emergency and accident conditions; SMRs and ONTs. Concurrently, the NRC research and test reactors (RTRs), as

• A hazard analysis of any NRC-is issuing for public comment draft defined in part 50 of title 10 of the Code licensed or non-licensed facility Regulatory Guide (DG), DG-1350, of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), contiguous or nearby to an SMR or Performance-Based Emergency Domestic Licensing of Production and ONT, that considers any hazard that Preparedness for Small Modular Utilization Facilities, do not consider would adversely impact the Reactors, Non-Light-Water Reactors, and the advances in designs and safety implementation of emergency plans; Non-power Production or Utilization research and their application to future

• A scalable approach for Facilities. The NRC plans to hold a operation of SMRs and ONTs. Through determining the size of the plume public meeting to promote full this proposed rule, the NRC is exposure pathway EPZ; and understanding of the proposed rule and proposing to amend its regulations to

• A requirement to describe ingestion guidance and to facilitate public create an alternative EP framework for response planning in the emergency SMRs and ONTs. The new alternative plan, including the capabilities and comment.

EP requirements and implementing resources available to prevent DATES: Submit comments by July 27, guidance in DG-1350 would adopt a contaminated food and water from 2020. Comments received after this date performance-based, technology- entering the ingestion pathway.

will be considered if it is practical to do inclusive, risk-informed, and so, but the Commission is able to ensure C. Costs and Benefits consequence-oriented approach. The consideration only for comments new alternative EP requirements and The NRC prepared a draft regulatory received before this date. guidance would adopt a scalable plume analysis to determine the expected ADDRESSES: You may submit comments exposure pathway emergency planning quantitative costs and benefits of this by any of the following methods (unless zone (EPZ) approach and address proposed rule and associated guidance this document describes a different ingestion response planning. The new as well as qualitative factors to be method for submitting comments on a alternative EP requirements and considered in the NRCs rulemaking specific subject): guidance would: (1) Continue to provide decision. The conclusion from the

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to reasonable assurance that adequate analysis is that this proposed rule and https://www.regulations.gov and search protective measures can and will be associated guidance would result in net for Docket ID NRC-2015-0225. Address implemented by an SMR or ONT averted costs to the industry and the questions about NRC dockets to Carol licensee; (2) promote regulatory NRC ranging from $5.89 million using a Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; stability, predictability, and clarity; (3) 7-percent discount rate to $9.71 million email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For reduce requests for exemptions from EP using a 3-percent discount rate.

technical questions contact the requirements; (4) recognize advances in The draft regulatory analysis also individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER design and technological advancements considered qualitative aspects, such as jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 INFORMATION CONTACT section of this embedded in design features; (5) credit greater regulatory stability, document. safety enhancements in evolutionary predictability, and clarity to the

• Email comments to: and passive systems; and (6) credit licensing process. These benefits would Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you smaller sized reactors and non-LWRs 1 Emergency planning requirements for facilities do not receive an automatic email reply potential benefits associated with licensed under 10 CFR part 70, Domestic confirming receipt, then contact us at postulated accidents, including slower Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, are set forth 301-415-1677. transient response times, and relatively in § 70.22(i).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28437 result from applicants and licensees not and order copies of public documents is 2019.2 The definition would include needing to use the exemption process to currently closed. You may submit your production or utilization facilities, establish EP criteria commensurate with request to the PDR via email at licensed under § 50.21(a), § 50.21(c), or design- and site-specific considerations. pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800- § 50.22, as applicable, that are not Another qualitative consideration is 397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 nuclear power reactors or production promoting a performance-based p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, facilities as defined under paragraphs regulatory framework that specifies except Federal holidays. (1) and (2) of the definition of requirements to be met and provides Production facility in § 50.2. In the B. Submitting Comments flexibility to an applicant or licensee context of this proposed rule, medical regarding the information or approach Please include Docket ID NRC-2015- radioisotope facilities that would be needed to satisfy those requirements. 0225 in your comment submission. To licensed under 10 CFR part 50 would For more information, please see the facilitate NRC review, please distinguish also be included within this definition draft regulatory analysis (available in your comments between comments on of NPUF. The term non-power the NRCs Agencywide Documents the proposed rule and comments on the production or utilization facility is Access and Management System proposed guidance. The NRC cautions used in this proposed rule to distinguish (ADAMS) Accession No. you not to include identifying or contact between those medical radioisotope ML18134A077). information that you do not want to be facilities that would be licensed as publicly disclosed in your comment production or utilization facilities under Table of Contents submission. The NRC will post all 10 CFR part 50 and other facilities to be I. Obtaining Information and Submitting comment submissions at https:// used for the production of medical Comments www.regulations.gov as well as enter the radioisotopes that would be licensed A. Obtaining Information comment submissions into ADAMS.

B. Submitting Comments under the regulations in 10 CFR parts The NRC does not routinely edit 30, Rules of General Applicability to II. Background III. Discussion comment submissions to remove Domestic Licensing of Byproduct IV. Specific Requests for Comments identifying or contact information. If Material, 40, Domestic Licensing of V. Section-by-Section Analysis you are requesting or aggregating Source Material, and 70, Domestic VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification comments from other persons for Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.

VII. Regulatory Analysis submission to the NRC, then you should Those facilities that would be licensed VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality inform those persons not to include IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, or 70 would identifying or contact information that be covered by existing emergency X. Plain Writing they do not want to be publicly XI. Environmental Assessment and Proposed planning requirements in those parts.

Finding of No Significant Impact disclosed in their comment submission. Relevant 10 CFR part 70 fuel facility XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Your request should state that the NRC emergency planning considerations XIII. Criminal Penalties does not routinely edit comment (e.g., inadvertent criticality accidents XIV. Voluntary Consensus Standards submissions to remove such information and hazardous chemical exposures)

XV. Availability of Guidance before making the comment applicable to 10 CFR part 50 production XVI. Public Meeting submissions available to the public or XVII. Availability of Documents facilities have been incorporated into entering the comment into ADAMS.

this proposed rule and associated draft I. Obtaining Information and II. Background guidance. As such, the scope of this Submitting Comments proposed rule is limited to those ONT Current EP requirements and A. Obtaining Information guidance, initially developed for large facilities (i.e., non-LWRs and medical LWRs and non-power reactors, do not radioisotope facilities) for which the Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015- NRC expects to receive license 0225 when contacting the NRC about consider advances in designs and safety research and their applications to applications under 10 CFR part 50 or 10 the availability of information for this CFR part 52, Licenses, Certifications, action. You may obtain publicly- existing or future operation of SMRs and ONTs. Within the SUPPLEMENTARY and Approvals for Nuclear Power available information related to this INFORMATION section of this document, Plants. Therefore, those NPUFs that are action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to the NRC uses the term ONTs to refer not considered ONTs (i.e., currently https://www.regulations.gov and search to new technologies, such as non-LWRs operating non-power reactors) are not for Docket ID NRC-2015-0225. and proposed medical radioisotope within the scope of this proposed rule.

• NRCs ADAMS: You may obtain facilities that would be licensed under Currently operating non-power reactors publicly-available documents online in 10 CFR part 50. Further, within this will continue to implement existing the ADAMS Public Documents document, the NRC uses the term emergency planning requirements and collection at https://www.nrc.gov/ existing or current when referring guidance.

reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the to existing applicants or licensees for an In the staff requirements search, select Begin Web-based SMR or ONT facility. This proposed memorandum (SRM) to SECY-15-0077, ADAMS Search. For problems with rule would also define non-power Options for Emergency Preparedness ADAMS, please contact the NRCs production or utilization facility to for Small Modular Reactors and Other Public Document Room (PDR) reference clarify the applicability of the proposed New Technologies, dated August 4, staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, performance-based EP framework. As 2015 (ADAMS Accession No.

or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For used in this proposed rule, the term ML15216A492), the Commission jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 the convenience of the reader, non-power production or utilization approved the staffs recommendation to instructions about obtaining materials facility would be defined to have the conduct rulemaking to address EP for referenced in this document are same meaning as the definition used in SMRs and ONTs. In December 2016, the provided in section XVII, Availability SECY-19-0062, Final Rule: Non-power 2 Any changes made to the definition of non-of Documents. Production or Utilization Facility power production or utilization facility based on

• Attention: The Public Document License Renewal (ADAMS Accession Commission direction will be reflected in the final Room (PDR), where you may examine No. ML18031A000), dated June 17, rule on EP for SMRs and ONTs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28438 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules NRC developed and published NRC Reactors (ADAMS Accession No. Emergency Planning for Research Vision and Strategy: Safely Achieving ML16061A104), dated July 2016, which Reactors. Similarly, RG 2.6, Revision 2 Effective and Efficient Non-Light Water provides guidance for operating power endorses the use of ANSI/ANS-15.16-Reactor Mission Readiness (ADAMS reactor licensees implementing 2015 for other NPUFs. The ANSI/ANS-Accession No. ML16356A670), with a requirements in § 50.54(q) for evaluating 15.16, originally developed in 1982, and goal to further develop the NRCs non- and making changes to emergency updated in 2008 and 2015, provides LWR regulatory, technical, and policy plans. specific criteria and guidance for RTRs infrastructure in order to be ready to This regulatory framework has to comply with the applicable efficiently and effectively review defined the EP programs for large LWRs requirements set forth in §§ 50.34, potential licensing applications for non- for several decades. These standards Contents of applications; technical LWR technologies. This proposed rule have been effectively used in practice information, and 50.54, and appendix contributes to the NRCs overall plan to and provided a basis to draw from in E to 10 CFR part 50.

optimize non-LWR regulatory readiness. developing the proposed EP regulatory In October 1983, the NRC issued In particular, the NRCs objective for framework for SMRs and ONTs. NUREG-0849, Standard Review Plan this proposed rule is to create for the Review and Evaluation of B. Existing Emergency Preparedness alternative EP requirements that would: Emergency Plans for Research and Test Framework for Non-Power Production (1) Continue to provide reasonable Reactors (ADAMS Accession No.

or Utilization Facilities assurance that adequate protective ML062190191). Consistent with ANSI/

measures can and will be implemented The EP requirements applicable to a ANS-15.16, NUREG-0849 provides by an SMR or ONT licensee; (2) promote particular applicant or licensee can vary areas of review, planning standards, and regulatory stability, predictability, and depending on the type of facility. In the evaluation items for the NRC to evaluate clarity; (3) reduce requests for August 19, 1980, EP final rule, compliance with the applicable exemptions from EP requirements; (4) Emergency Planning (45 FR 55402) emergency planning requirements, recognize advances in design and (referred to herein as the 1980 Final previously described. Notably, the technology advancements embedded in Rule), the NRC established in appendix guidance contained in both ANSI/ANI-design features; (5) credit safety E to 10 CFR part 50 emergency planning 15.16 and NUREG-0849 addresses EPZs enhancements in evolutionary and requirements for RTRs that reflected the for RTRs ranging from the operations passive systems; and (6) credit smaller lower potential radiological hazards boundary to 800 meters from the sized reactors and non-LWRs potential associated with these facilities. While operations boundary 3 for facilities up to benefits associated with postulated RTRs and other NPUFs must meet the 50 MWt. Both guidance documents state accidents, including slower transient emergency planning requirements of that the EPZs for facilities operating response times, and relatively small and §§ 50.34(a)(10) and (b)(6)(v) and 50.54(q) above 50 MWt are to be considered on slow release of fission products. and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, the a case-by-case basis. In addition to requirements of § 50.47 do not apply to NUREG-0849 and ANSI/ANS-15.16, A. Existing Emergency Preparedness these facilities. Additionally, in section Section 12.7, Emergency Planning, of Framework for Nuclear Power Reactors I.3. of appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, the the non-power reactor standard review Appendix E, Emergency Planning NRC differentiates between emergency plan, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, and Preparedness for Production and planning requirements for nuclear Guidelines for Preparing and Utilization Facilities, to 10 CFR part 50 power reactors and other facilities, Reviewing Applications for the identifies the specific items required to stating that the size of EPZs and the Licensing of Non-power Reactors be included in emergency plans. degree to which compliance with (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML042430055 Additionally, the regulation in § 50.47, sections I through V of appendix E to 10 and ML042430048) and the Interim Staff Emergency plans, provides EP CFR part 50 is necessary will be Guidance augmenting NUREG-1537, requirements for nuclear power reactors, determined on a case-by-case basis for Parts 1 and 2, for the licensing of including planning standards for onsite facilities other than power reactors. radioisotope production facilities and and offsite emergency response plans. Further, footnote 2 of appendix E to aqueous homogeneous reactors Other relevant regulations include 10 CFR part 50 provides that RG 2.6, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12156A069 paragraphs (q), (s), and (t) of § 50.54, Emergency Planning for Research and and ML12156A075) provide additional Conditions of licenses. Test Reactors, will be used as guidance emergency planning considerations for Large LWRs use a variety of guidance for the acceptability of RTR emergency NPUFs. For example, relevant documents in support of EP programs. response plans. Regulatory Guide 2.6 radioisotope production facility The two most notable guidance was initially issued in January 1979 emergency planning considerations documents for the development and (ADAMS Accession No. ML12184A008) (e.g., hazardous chemicals) contained in maintenance of emergency plans are: and most recently updated to Revision the Interim Staff Guidance augmenting NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, 2, Emergency Planning for Research NUREG-1537 are based on NUREG-Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation and Test Reactors and Other Non-power 1520, Revision 1, Standard Review of Radiological Emergency Response Production and Utilization Facilities, Plan for the Review of a License Plans and Preparedness in Support of in September 2017 (ADAMS Accession Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility Nuclear Power Plants (ADAMS No. ML17263A472). Consistent with the (ADAMS Accession No. ML101390110).

Accession No. ML040420012), dated radiological risks associated with These criteria and guidance provide a November 1980, which provides operating power levels between 5 watts basis for NPUF applicants and licensees guidance and evaluation criteria for the thermal and 20 MWt for currently jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 to develop acceptable emergency development and evaluation of operating RTRs, RG 2.6, Revision 2 operating power reactors and offsite endorses the use of the source term and 3 As defined in ANSI/ANS-15.16-2015, response organizations (OROs) power-level based emergency planning operations boundary refers to the area within the radiological emergency response plans; guidance contained in American site boundary such as the reactor building (or the nearest physical personnel barrier in cases where and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.219, Rev. National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the reactor building is not a principal physical 1, Guidance on Making Changes to American Nuclear Society (ANS) personnel barrier) where the reactor chief Emergency Plans for Nuclear Power standard ANSI/ANS-15.16-2015, administrator has direct authority over all activities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28439 response plans for their facilities. This on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Commissions defense-in-depth safety existing regulatory framework for EP at Power Plants (ADAMS Accession No. philosophy.

NPUFs provides the planning necessary ML13253A431) in June 1988 to provide In the early 2000s, performance-based to reflect the lower potential guidance on developing new regulatory EP became an important component of radiological hazards associated with the requirements to support advanced LWR licensing and relicensing operation of these facilities compared to reactor designs. With the issuance of discussions. As part of an EP exemption large LWRs. These EP standards provide this initial guidance came questions request review, in SECY-04-0236, a basis for developing the consequence- concerning EP requirements for such Southern Nuclear Operating oriented approach to establishing EPZs designs. Companys Proposal to Establish a and the planning commensurate with In response, the NRC staff stated in Common Emergency Operating Facility the radiological risk. SECY-93-092, Issues Pertaining to the at its Corporate Headquarters, dated Advanced Reactor (PRISM, MHTGR, December 23, 2004 (ADAMS Accession C. Evolution of the Emergency and PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs and Preparedness Regulatory Framework for No. ML042590576), the NRC staff noted Their Relationship to Current the following:

Small Modular Reactors and Other New Regulatory Requirements 4 (ADAMS Technologies Accession No. ML040210725), dated

[A]s part of the top-down review of Emergency Preparedness, the staff has The use and regulation of small April 8, 1993, that no change to existing identified 10 CFR 50 Appendix E section E.8 reactors and other advanced reactor EP regulations for advanced reactors and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3) as opportunities to designs have been active topics of was currently needed. The NRC staff enhance the emergency preparedness discussion between the NRC and the noted that regulatory direction would be regulatory structure. The staff will propose nuclear reactor industry for more than given at or before the start of the design rulemaking to remove near-site from the 30 years. The NRC has worked with certification phase of advanced reactors regulations, as a more performance based stakeholders to develop an initial so that design implications for EP could requirement is appropriate. . . .

framework for the implementation of be addressed in the licensing process. The Commission agreed, highlighting performance-based EP regulations and The Commission agreed, and stated in the potential value of performance-licensing of non-LWR designs, the SRM (ADAMS Accession No. based EP for LWRs in the SRM (ADAMS culminating in the current EP ML003760774) for SECY-93-092, dated Accession No. ML050550131) for rulemaking activities. This section July 30, 1993, that it was premature to SECY-04-0236, dated February 23, describes the history of small and reach a conclusion on EP for advanced 2005. The Commission directed that:

advanced reactor designs that led to this reactors and that existing regulatory proposed rule. requirements should be used for The staff should consider revising 10 CFR part 50 to make the requirements for EOFs ongoing review processes. However, the Emerging Interest in Advanced Nuclear [emergency operations facilities] more Commission directed that: performance-based to allow other multi-plant Reactor Technology

[T]he staff should remain open to licensees to consolidate their EOFs, if those Concurrent with large LWR suggestions to simplify the emergency licensees can demonstrate their emergency deployment and design evolution, the planning requirements for reactors that are response strategies will adequately cope with United States and other countries have designed with greater safety margins. To that an emergency at any of the associated plants.

developed and promoted several end, the staff should submit to the different reactor designs that are either Commission recommendations for proposed In this decision, the Commission light-water SMRs with passive safety technical criteria and methods to use to allowed for the development of a features or reactors that do not use light- justify simplification of existing emergency performance-based EP requirement.

water as a coolant. This latter category planning requirements. In SECY-06-0200, Results of the is commonly referred to as non-LWR In response to the Commissions Review of Emergency Preparedness technology. Advanced designs using direction, the NRC performed an Regulations and Guidance, dated non-LWR technology include liquid- evaluation to develop technical criteria September 20, 2006 (ADAMS Accession metal-cooled reactors, gas-cooled and methods for EP for evolutionary and No. ML061910707), the staff sought reactors, and molten-salt-cooled advanced reactor designs. The Commission approval to explore the reactors. These advanced designs rated evaluation focused on evolutionary and feasibility of a voluntary, performance-thermal power could range from low to passive advanced LWR designs due to based EP regulatory regimen.

very high and may apply modular the availability of design and risk Specifically, the staff stated:

construction concepts. assessment data and because applicants [A]s the EP program has matured and As advanced reactor technology were pursuing certification of these industry performance has improved, the staff evolved in the 1980s and early 1990s, designs. In SECY-97-020, Results of recognized the benefits of a performance-the NRC considered the prospect of a Evaluation of Emergency Planning for based regulatory structure. Thus, the staff is regulatory regime for these emerging Evolutionary and Advanced Reactors proposing a new voluntary performance-(ADAMS Accession No. ML992920024), based regulatory regimen. The staff has technologies. On July 8, 1986, the conceptualized the basis for a voluntary Commission issued a policy statement, dated January 27, 1997, the NRC staff performance-based EP regulatory Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power determined that the rationale upon regimen. . . . This regimen could be Plants, Statement of Policy (51 FR which EP for current reactor designs is adopted in lieu of the existing EP regulations 24643), outlining the Commissions based, that is, potential consequences contained in 10 CFR part 50. The current early thoughts on the regulation of from a spectrum of accidents, is regimen tends to emphasize compliance advanced reactor designs. In the policy appropriate for use as the basis for EP with, and control over, emergency plans and jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 statement, the Commission provided a for evolutionary and passive advanced facilities. The performance-based regimen high-level framework for the review and LWR designs and is consistent with the would focus licensee efforts on actual performance competencies, rather than consideration of advanced reactor control of emergency plans and procedures.

4 PRISM, MHTGR, PIUS, and CANDU designs. Following issuance of the Regulatory oversight would focus on licensee are abbreviations for Power Reactor Innovative policy statement, the NRC published Small Module, Modular High-Temperature Gas- performance, instead of licensee processes NUREG-1226, Development and Cooled Reactor, Process Inherent Ultimate Safety, and procedures. Creating a performance-Utilization of the NRC Policy Statement and CANadian Deuterium-Uranium, respectively. based EP regulatory regimen could achieve a VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28440 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules higher level of preparedness, as the regimen implementing a performance-based Accession Nos. ML092940138 and would focus on results and abilities rather framework and could introduce ML102380209 respectively).

than on means. The performance-based regulatory uncertainty. Additionally, the Discussions included the proposed regimen would provide the NRC with NRC staff recognized that existing EP framework of potential EP requirements.

enhanced oversight of the actual competencies important to protection of programs provided reasonable assurance Emergency preparedness was a public health and safety while allowing of adequate protection of public health significant policy issue for SMR licensees increased flexibility. and safety and therefore recommended designers because SMR designs may maintaining the current EP regimen. have reduced accident consequences In SECY-06-0200, the staff also In the SRM (ADAMS Accession No. offsite per module, potentially forming outlined several high-level performance- ML14259A589) to SECY-14-0038, the basis for smaller EPZs relative to based concepts for large LWRs related to dated September 16, 2014, the large LWRs.

performance goals, staffing, and Commission directed that: The NRC staff discussed the publics performance indicators (PIs). In the The staff should be vigilant in continuing input from those meetings in SECY SRM (ADAMS Accession No.

to assess the NRCs emergency preparedness 0152, Development of an Emergency ML070080411) for SECY-06-0200, program and should not rule out the Planning and Preparedness Framework dated January 8, 2007, the Commission possibility of moving to a performance-based for Small Modular Reactors on October approved the NRC staffs framework in the future. The Commission 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.

recommendation for the development of notes the potential benefit of a performance- ML112570439). The paper informed the a rulemaking plan and guidance based emergency preparedness regimen for Commission of the NRC staffs proposed changes to enhance EP regulations and small modular reactors, and the staff should return to the Commission if it finds that actions to develop an emergency guidance. The Commission also conditions warrant rulemaking. planning and preparedness framework approved the staffs request to begin for SMR facilities. In the document, the activities to explore a voluntary Approach to Emergency Preparedness NRC staff stated its intent to develop a performance-based EP regulatory for Small Modular Reactors and Other technology-neutral, dose-based, concept. New Technologies During the early development of a consequence-oriented EP framework for performance-based EP regulatory In the late 2000s, the discussion of SMR sites that would take into account concept, the NRC published a Policy modernizing EP and developing the various designs, modularity, and Statement on the Regulation of alternative performance-based collocation of these facilities, as well as Advanced Reactors, dated October 14, requirements for LWRs merged with the the size of the EPZs. The staff also stated 2008 (73 FR 60612). The policy NRCs ongoing discussions of advanced that [t]he staff will work with statement expressed the Commissions reactor designs. By this time, several stakeholders to develop general expectation that advanced reactor advanced reactor designs were under guidance on calculating the offsite dose, designers would ensure that security discussion in the U.S., including the and is anticipating that the industry will and emergency response are considered U.S. Department of Energys (DOEs) develop and implement the detailed alongside safety during the early stages Next Generation Nuclear Plant and SMR calculation method for review and of plant design. programs, and by private sector approval by the staff.

By 2014, the NRC had finalized its companies seeking to introduce an In response to SECY-11-0152, the study and review of the potential to alternative to large LWRs. By 2010, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) prepared enhance the oversight of performance- NRC began considering the possibility a white paper to provide perspective to based nuclear power plant EP programs of developing a performance-based the NRC and SMR developers in as directed in the SRM for SECY approach to EP for SMRs and ONTs. In establishing SMR-appropriate EPZs. In 0200. In SECY-14-0038, Performance- SECY-10-0034, Potential Policy, the White Paper on Proposed Based Framework for Nuclear Power Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Methodology and Criteria for Plant Emergency Preparedness Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Establishing the Technical Basis for Oversight (ADAMS Accession No. Designs, issued on March 28, 2010 Small Modular Reactor Emergency ML13238A018), dated April 4, 2014, the (ADAMS Accession No. ML093290268), Planning Zone, submitted in December NRC staff stated: the NRC staff identified EP as a key 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.

technical issue for the licensing of SMRs ML13364A345), NEI noted the NRC A systematic review and revision of EP expectation in SECY-11-0152 that SMR and other advanced reactor designs. The requirements to employ a more performance-based oversight regimen (regulation, enclosure to the SECY stated that license applicants will provide a well-inspection, and enforcement) has the resolution of offsite EP requirements justified technical basis for NRCs potential to enhance many aspects of would be of interest to the Federal review and consideration. The 2013 emergency response and oversight. A Emergency Management Agency White Paper was designed to discuss a performance-based oversight regimen could (FEMA) and the public, as well as to generic methodology and criteria that simplify EP regulations and focus inspection applicants trying to support their can be adopted and used by the SMR more fully on response-related performance business case at the design certification developers and plant operating license rather than the current focus on plan stage. applicants for establishing the design-maintenance and compliance. Contemporaneous with the issuance specific and site-specific technical basis Although the NRC staff asserted that of SECY-10-0034, the NRC held a series for SMR-appropriate EPZs. In the the performance-based framework of public meetings with other Federal paper, NEI stated that the intent of the would simplify EP regulations and focus agencies, industry leaders, and key paper was to serve as a vehicle to jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 inspections more on response-related stakeholders to discuss potential policy, support the continuing dialogue with performance, the NRC staff licensing, and technical issues the staff that should result in a mutually recommended that the existing associated with advanced reactor agreeable methodology and criteria, and framework continue to be used with designs. Additional information on thus provide the SMR developers and operating plants because changing the these meetings can be found in the applicants sufficient guidance as they EP approach for those plants would summaries for the October 8-9, 2009 proceed to develop their design-specific require significant resources for and July 28, 2010 meetings (ADAMS and site-specific technical basis. As VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28441 stated in the paper, NEIs approach was Commission further directed that, for request feedback from interested rooted in the following: any SMR reviews conducted prior to the stakeholders on a potential (1) The expectation of enhanced safety establishment of a regulation, the staff performance-based approach for EP for inherent in the design of SMRs (e.g., should be prepared to adapt an SMRs and ONTs. The participants increased safety margin, reduced risk, approach to EPZs for SMRs under the supported a performance-based smaller and slower fission product accident existing exemption process. approach for EP, indicating that it release, and reduced potential for dose In June 2015, NEI issued a White would be more effective because it consequences to population in the vicinity of Paper supporting the NRC proposal in would focus on achieving desired the plant); (2) the applicable SECY-11-0152 SECY-15-0077 and recommending the outcomes. Participants also favored the concepts including utilization of existing revision of EP regulations and guidance performance-based approach because it emergency preparedness regulatory framework and dose savings criteria of for SMR facilities. In White Paper: would allow for innovation and NUREG-0396; and (3) the significant body of Proposed Emergency Preparedness flexibility in addressing the EP risk information available to inform the Regulations and Guidance for Small requirements. The potential need for an technical basis for SMR-appropriate EPZ, Modular Reactors Facilities (ADAMS entire new suite of guidance documents, including severe accident information Accession No. ML15194A276), dated including the process by which developed since NUREG-0396 was published July 2015, NEI provided proposed licensees make changes to their in 1978, and information from the design- revisions to the planning standards set emergency plans (i.e., change process),

specific and plant-specific probabilistic risk forth in § 50.47 and appendix E to 10 was the only disadvantage identified by assessments (PRAs) which will support SMR design and licensing. CFR part 50 as well as associated EP participants as it would require guidance. The proposed revisions were additional up-front work to reflect the The NEI 2013 White Paper addressed developed by NEI to constructively new approach. Additional information only SMRs with light-water-cooled and inform the staffs deliberations about this public meeting is detailed in moderated designs and the plume concerning the development of an SMR the meeting summary (ADAMS exposure pathway EPZ. It did not EP framework, and serve as a basis for Accession No. ML16257A510). After address other designs or the ingestion future public meeting engagement. The considering the feedback received from pathway EPZ (IPZ). The NRC has NRC staff has considered NEIs the stakeholders in support of the reviewed the White Paper and has recommendations in the development of performance-based approach to EP, the discussed the development of the this proposed rule. NRC staff developed a draft regulatory regulatory framework with NEI and In addition to the NEI white papers, basis that included an option to proceed stakeholders; however, the NRC has not the NRC staff has had several with rulemaking to implement this endorsed the paper. interactions with the public concerning approach.

In the enclosure to SECY-10-0034, licensing issues related to SMRs and On April 13, 2017, the NRC issued a the NRC staff stated, Should it be ONTs, including DOE-NRC Workshops draft regulatory basis for a 75-day public necessary, the staff will propose changes on Advanced Non-Light-Water Reactors comment period (82 FR 17768). In the to existing regulatory requirements and held on September 1-2, 2015 and June draft regulatory basis, the NRC guidance or develop new guidance 7-8, 2016. The NRC staff held these requested feedback from the public on concerning reduction of offsite workshops to obtain stakeholder questions related to the scope of the emergency preparedness for SMRs in a feedback regarding the proposed rule draft regulatory basis, performance-timeframe consistent with the licensing and inform the public on the proposed based approach, regulatory impacts, and schedule. In 2015, the NRC determined approach. Additional information on cumulative effects of regulation (CER).

that SMR EP issues were a key concern these workshops may be found in the In addition, the NRC held a public for potential SMR and ONT applicants, summaries available at ADAMS meeting on May 10, 2017, to discuss the and that addressing those issues would Accession Nos. ML15265A165 and draft regulatory basis with interested enhance regulatory predictability for ML16188A226. stakeholders. Additional information both applicants and the NRC. In May about this public meeting is detailed in 2015, the NRC staff sought Commission Rulemaking Activity the meeting summary (ADAMS approval to initiate rulemaking to revise In response to SRM for SECY Accession No. ML16257A510).

the EP regulations and guidance for 0077, on May 31, 2016, the NRC staff The NRC received 57 comment SMRs and ONTs. In SECY-15-0077, submitted a rulemaking plan to the submissions on the draft regulatory Options for Emergency Preparedness Commission (SECY-16-0069, basis and the associated regulatory for Small Modular Reactors and Other Rulemaking Plan on Emergency analysis, which contained 223 New Technologies (ADAMS Accession Preparedness for Small Modular individual comments related to EP. The No. ML15037A176), dated May 29, Reactors and Other New Technologies commenters included individuals, 2015, the NRC staff proposed a (ADAMS Accession No. environmental groups, industry groups, consequence-oriented approach to ML16020A388)) to propose rulemaking a Native American Tribal organization, establishing EP requirements to address EP for SMRs and ONTs. In States, and FEMA. The NRC reviewed commensurate with the potential SECY-16-0069, the staff provided a all comments submitted on the draft consequences to public health and proposed rulemaking schedule, regulatory basis, grouped the comments safety and the common defense and outlining the need to develop EP into categories by comment topic, and security at SMR and ONT facilities. The requirements for SMRs and ONTs developed a resolution for each topic.

NRC staff stated that the need for EP is commensurate with the potential Comments included topics such as:

based on the projected offsite dose in consequences to public health and Consequence-based approach, co-jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 the unlikely occurrence of a severe safety posed by these facilities. On June location, dose assessment, EPZ and accident. In SRM-SECY-15-0077, the 22, 2016, the Commission approved the offsite EP, general rulemaking approach, Commission approved the staffs staffs rulemaking plan in SRM-SECY- siting of multi-module facilities, recommendation to proceed with 16-0069 (ADAMS Accession No. performance-based approach, regulatory rulemaking, keeping a performance- ML16174A166). analysis, scope of the draft regulatory based framework in mind as previously On August 22, 2016, the NRC staff basis, safety, and technology-inclusive directed in SRM-SECY-14-0038. The held a Category 3 public meeting to approach. The NRC considered those VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28442 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules comment submissions and discussions about 50 miles (80 km) in radius. See For clarity, this proposed rule would from the public meeting as it finalized §§ 50.33(g) and 50.47(c). As discussed in define the different types of affected the regulatory basis. The NRC published the Background section of this facilities. The NRC would amend § 50.2 a notice in the Federal Register document, in the early 2000s, the NRC to include the terms small modular announcing the public availability of anticipated that future SMR and ONT reactor, non-light-water reactor, and the regulatory basis on November 15, applications would reflect a wide range non-power production or utilization 2017 (82 FR 52862). of potential designs that have smaller facility. In developing the proposed source terms and incorporate EP definition for small modular reactor, III. Discussion the NRC referred to a variety of existing considerations as part of the design. The Objective and Applicability Commission Policy Statement on the definitions and policy documents. The The NRCs objective for this Regulation of Advanced Reactors (73 FR following discussion describes these rulemaking is to create alternative EP 60612) stated that the Commission sources of information in more detail.

expects that advanced reactors will In this proposed rule, the NRC has requirements that would: (1) Continue provide enhanced margins of safety included a definition of non-light-to provide reasonable assurance that and/or use simplified, inherent, passive, water reactor to cover other new adequate protective measures can and technologies, including liquid-metal-will be implemented by an SMR or ONT or other innovative means to accomplish their safety and security cooled reactors, gas-cooled reactors, and licensee; (2) promote regulatory molten-salt-cooled reactors. Having a stability, predictability, and clarity; (3) functions. Under the current EP framework, §§ 50.33(g) and 50.47(c)(2) separate definition for these non-LWR reduce requests for exemptions from EP technologies would clarify the requirements; (4) recognize advances in provide that the size of plume exposure pathway EPZs and IPZs for gas-cooled applicability of the existing EP design and technology advancements standards and requirements in 10 CFR embedded in design features; (5) credit nuclear reactors and for reactors with an authorized power level less than 250 part 50, which are specific to LWRs, and safety enhancements in evolutionary would maintain consistency between and passive systems; and (6) credit MWt may be determined on a case-by-case basis.Section I.3 of appendix E to this proposed rule and the Variable smaller sized reactors and non-LWRs Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular potential benefits associated with 10 CFR part 50 states that the EPZs for facilities other than power reactors may Reactors final rule (81 FR 32617; May postulated accidents, including slower 24, 2016) (referred to herein as the transient response times, and relatively also be determined on a case-by-case basis. In addition, applicants and SMR Fee Rule).

small and slow release of fission The NRC has evaluated the suitability products. This proposed rule would licensees for power reactors may also request that the size of the EPZs and of using the existing definition of small apply to existing and future SMR and modular reactor in § 171.5, ONT facilities. These applicants and IPZs for their facilities be determined on Definitions for the purposes of this EP licensees would have the option to a case-by-case basis by seeking an proposed rule. The § 171.5 definition of develop a performance-based EP exemption under § 50.12, Specific small modular reactor means, for the program designed for SMRs and ONTs, exemptions, from the requirements in purpose of calculating fees, the class of as an alternative to complying with the § 50.47(c)(2) regardless of authorized light-water power reactors having a existing, deterministic EP requirements power level. Furthermore, appendix E to licensed thermal power rating less than in 10 CFR part 50. This proposed rule 10 CFR part 50, provides the flexibility or equal to 1,000 MWt per module. This does not include within its scope to determine other emergency planning rating is based on the thermal power emergency planning, preparation, and considerations, such as organization, equivalent of a light-water SMR with an response for large LWRs, which for the assessment actions, activation of electrical power generating capacity of purposes of this proposed rule are those emergency organization, emergency 300 megawatts electrical or less per LWRs that are licensed to produce facilities, and equipment, on a case-by- module. Although similar, this greater than 1,000 MWt power; fuel case basis for certain facilities. proposed rules definition of small cycle facilities; or currently operating The NRC initiated this proposed rule modular reactor does not include non-power reactors. to seek a wide-range of public views and reference to electrical power generating In SRM-SECY-15-0077, the increase regulatory predictability and capacity. For the fee-related regulations Commission approved the staffs flexibility in the development of an in 10 CFR part 171, the NRC determined recommendation to conduct rulemaking alternative, generic approach that that using the thermal power equivalent for SMRs and ONTs, including non- designers, vendors, and applicants may of electric power generating capacity LWRs and medical radioisotope use to determine the appropriate EP would be fair because SMRs should pay facilities. The current operating fleet of requirements for SMRs and ONTs, for annual fees that are commensurate with power reactors has an established EP which emergency planning may the economic benefit received from their regulatory framework under § 50.47 and otherwise be addressed on a case-by- license (81 FR 32617, 32623). Because appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. case basis. In particular, this proposed electrical generating power capacity is Emergency planning requirements for rule would provide additional not a criterion the NRC uses to facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 70 predictability and flexibility for determine EP requirements, this are set forth in § 70.22(i). The NRC advanced reactor developers that use proposed rules definition would focus established in appendix E to 10 CFR simplified or other innovative means to on thermal power rating.

part 50 emergency planning accomplish their safety functions and requirements for RTRs that reflect the provide enhanced margins of safety. Need for Changes to Existing Regulatory jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 lower potential radiological hazards Large LWRs were not included by the Framework associated with these facilities. NRC in the scope of this proposed rule As mentioned in the Background The plume exposure pathway EPZ for because an EP licensing framework section of this document, in SECY the current operating fleet of nuclear already exists for those reactors, and 0034, the NRC identified potential power reactors consists of an area about licensees for those plants have not policy and licensing issues for SMRs 10 miles (16 km) in radius and the IPZ expressed a clear interest in changing based on the preliminary design for such facilities consists of an area that framework. information supplied in pre-application VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28443 interactions and discussions with SMR and licensees that would continue to the NRCs identification of emergency designers and the DOE. In general, these provide reasonable assurance that response functions that affect the issues result from the key differences adequate protective measures can and protection of public health and safety between the new designs and the will be implemented in a radiological and the licensees successful execution current-generation large LWRs, such as emergency. The proposed alternative EP of those functions. The NRCs proposed rated thermal power, moderator, requirements would consider a wide- performance-based framework, coolant, and fuel design. In SECY range of views and acknowledge inspection and enforcement program, 0034, the NRC described designs technological advancements and other and design-specific review process discussed in pre-application differences from large LWRs inherent in would provide reasonable assurance interactions with DOE and SMR SMRs and ONTs and reduce regulatory that protective actions can and will be designers. The rated thermal power of burden by precluding the need for taken in the event of an emergency at an these designs ranged from 30 MWt to exemptions from EP requirements as SMR or ONT facility. The NRC has 1,000 MWt. The designs included the applicants request permits and licenses. previously explored the idea of a use of helium gas, sodium, and light- This proposed rule would also support performance-based EP framework, as water as coolants. While some SMR the principles of good regulation, discussed in the Performance-Based designs employ conventional LWR including openness, clarity, and Emergency Preparedness section of radiological barrier designs, some reliability. this document, and the Commission designs may employ a non-traditional noted that a performance-based containment approach. Proposed Changes approach was a potential benefit to In addition to licensing issues Technical Basis regulating EP for SMRs. The associated with differences in designs, performance-based approach could some of the licensing issues resulted The NRC is proposing a performance- simplify EP regulations and focus from industry-proposed review based, technology-inclusive, risk- inspections more fully on response-approaches and industry-proposed informed, and consequence-oriented related performance. A graded approach modifications to current policies and alternative approach to EP for SMRs and to EP was also considered, which would practices, including standard review ONTs. These approaches form the basis take into account the magnitude of any plans and design-specific review for the NRCs proposed rule, and the credible hazard involved, the particular standards. The potential for smaller following discussion addresses the characteristics and status of a facility, reactor core sizes, lower power technical basis for each. and the balance between radiological densities, lower probability of severe Performance-Based Approach and non-radiological hazards. A graded accidents, slower accident progression, approach to EP has a longstanding and smaller accident offsite The NRCs current regulatory regulatory history. The 16 EP planning consequences per module that framework for EP in 10 CFR part 50 standards for nuclear power reactors, characterize some SMR designs have led requires that site-specific emergency outlined in § 50.47(b), and the DOE, SMR designers, and potential plans be developed and maintained in associated evaluation criteria in operators to revisit the determination of compliance with 16 planning standards NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision the appropriate size of the EPZs, the and supporting regulatory guidance for 1, are one part of a continuum of extent of onsite and offsite emergency nuclear power reactors. This planning standards for radiological EP.

planning, and the number of onsite deterministic structure does not provide The existing regulations in § 50.47(c)(2) response staff needed. performance standards, but the for EPZ size determinations for gas-Historically, licensees of small regulations and guidance for emergency cooled reactors and reactors with power reactors have requested exemptions response organizations (EROs) levels less than 250 MW(t), the EP from EP regulations because those EP emphasize requirements for emergency regulations for production and requirements would have imposed a plans and facilities. The existing EP utilization facilities other than nuclear regulatory burden on the applicants that requirements for large LWRs are based power reactors in appendix E to 10 CFR was not necessary to protect the public on decades of research on the risks part 50, and the EP regulations for fuel health and safety due to the facilities posed by these facilities. The risks for cycle facilities in § 70.22(i) and designs. The NRC anticipates that these facilities are well understood, and, independent spent fuel storage existing or future SMR and ONT as such, a deterministic approach to installations (ISFSIs) in § 72.32, applicants could also have designs that regulating EP is an effective method for Emergency Plan, are also part of a differ substantially from the existing providing reasonable assurance that graded approach to EP that is fleet of large LWRs. These applicants protective actions can and will be taken commensurate with the relative could also request exemptions from EP in a radiological emergency. radiological risk, source term, and requirements that are potentially The NRC anticipates that existing and potential hazards, among other unnecessary to protect the public health future SMR and ONT applications will considerations.

and safety. Although the exemption reflect a wide range of potential designs process provides the flexibility to and source terms. Because the Technology-Inclusive Approach address these existing or future technology for certain SMR and ONT As previously mentioned, the NRC applicants, regulating by exemption designs is still evolving, a performance- has licensed, reviewed, or had pre-generally provides little opportunity for based approach could allow for more application discussions with public engagement in the exemption regulatory flexibility, provide a basis for stakeholders supporting a range of process and can lead to undue burden appropriate EP through review of technology types that are included in jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 for applicants, licensees, and the NRC design- and site-specific accident the scope of this proposed rule. Based stemming from the applicant- or scenarios, and minimize the need for on the information currently available to licensee-specific nature of exemption exemption requests that would the NRC, unique design considerations requests. otherwise be anticipated under a (e.g., passive safety characteristics, This proposed rule would create a prescriptive regulatory framework. In advanced fuel types, and chemical transparent alternative EP regulatory this context, a performance-based processes) and the potential for multi-framework for SMR and ONT applicants approach bases the adequacy of EP upon module facilities and siting contiguous VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28444 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules with, or nearby to, NRC-licensed or non- small operating reactors, material objective of emergency response plans licensed facilities could lead to a variety facilities, fuel facilities, ISFSIs, NPUFs, should be to provide dose savings for a of accident frequencies, progression and decommissioning large LWRs spectrum of accidents that could times, and potential consequences for (including SECY-18-0055, Proposed produce offsite doses in excess of the SMRs or ONTs. To incorporate recent Rule: Regulatory Improvements for EPA PAGs for those members of the and potential existing or future Production and Utilization Facilities public who would most likely receive technology advancements and reduce Transitioning to Decommissioning exposure as a result of a significant the need for future EP rulemaking, the (ADAMS Accession No. ML18012A019), release.

NRC is therefore proposing a dated May 22, 2018). This review In the 1980 Final Rule, based on the technology-inclusive approach to EP for identified that all of the existing types guidance in NUREG-0396, the NRC SMRs and ONTs. In this context, of NRC-licensed nuclear facilities use a established plume exposure pathway technology-inclusive means the consequence-oriented approach and and ingestion pathway EPZ establishment of performance take into account other considerations requirements for large LWRs of about 10 requirements for any SMR or ONT to establish the boundary of the plume miles (16 km) and 50 miles (80 km),

applicant or licensee to use in its exposure pathway EPZ (or other respectively. The NRC also clarified that emergency plan. planning area). The consequence or the size of the EPZ could be determined As described further in the dose considerations are based on the on a case-by-case basis for gas-cooled Performance-Based Framework U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nuclear reactors and for reactors with an section of this document, the NRCs (EPA) early-phase Protective Action authorized power level less than 250 proposed alternative framework for Guides (PAGs) (EPA-520/1-75-001), MWt. The NRC stated that this SMRs and ONTs consists of two major issued in September 1975. The PAGs requirement was based on the lower elementsan EPZ size determination were revised and republished as EPA- potential hazard from these facilities process and a set of performance-based 400-R-92-001 in May 1992, and a (i.e., lower radionuclide inventory and requirements. The size of an EPZ subsequent revision, EPA-400/R-17/ longer times to release significant determined by this process is scalable 001, was issued in January 2017. A amounts of activity in many scenarios) based on factors such as accident source similar consequence-oriented rationale and clarified that the radionuclides to term, fission product release, and also would be one option for be considered for large LWR accident associated dose characteristics, and the establishing the EPZ for SMR or ONT scenarios in planning were set forth in same process can be applied to all SMR designs. NUREG-0396. Similarly, the NRC and ONT designs. Further, the established in the 1980 Final Rule that performance-based requirements in The general considerations from the the degree to which compliance with proposed § 50.160, Emergency existing planning basis for EP, sections I through V of appendix E to 10 preparedness for small modular established in NUREG-0396/EPA 520/ CFR part 50 would apply to RTRs and reactors, non-light-water reactors, and 1-78-016, Planning Basis for the fuel cycle facilities would be non-power production or utilization Development of State and Local determined on a case-by-case basis facilities, do not contain any Government Radiological Emergency because the radiological hazards to the technology-specific language. Rather, Response Plans in Support of Light public associated with their operation applicants and licensees would Water Nuclear Power Plants (ADAMS involve considerations different than demonstrate how they meet the EP Accession No. ML051390356), those associated with nuclear power performance-based framework based on introduced the concept of generic EPZs reactors.

their design- and site-specific as the basis for preplanned response In this proposed rule, the NRC would considerations through the actions. These considerations were establish a plume exposure pathway implementation of a performance intended to result in dose savings to EPZ boundary that provides public objective scheme and the conduct of members of the public in the environs protection from dose levels above a 10 drills and exercises. of a nuclear facility when the EPA PAGs millisieverts (mSv) [1 roentgen-were used as the threshold to trigger the equivalent man (rem)] total effective Risk-Informed and Consequence- preplanned protective actions in the dose equivalent (TEDE) threshold. The Oriented Approaches to Emergency event of a reactor accident that would primary purpose of the plume exposure Planning result in offsite dose consequences. pathway EPZ is to provide an area The NRC is proposing a consequence- Other considerations in the planning where predetermined protective actions oriented approach to establish EP basis include the stipulation that no are implemented, which result in dose requirements for SMRs and ONTs. In single specific accident sequence should savings and a reduction in early health this context, consequence-oriented be isolated as the one for which to plan effects. In determining this boundary, means the principle of basing decisions because each accident could have the applicant would consider plume of the extent of EP required upon the different consequences, both in nature exposure doses from a spectrum of level and severity of the consequences and degree. Planning should be based credible accidents for the facility. The of a credible radiological accident. The upon knowledge of the potential NRC expects that areas outside of the decisions regarding EP should be based consequences, timing, and radiological sites proposed plume exposure upon projected offsite dose from such release characteristics from a spectrum pathway EPZ would not exceed the dose accidents and the pre-determined plume of accidents, including severe accidents. threshold of 10 mSv (1 rem) TEDE based exposure pathway EPZ for pre-planned The joint NRC-EPA task force that on site-specific meteorology for a protective actions. Emergency developed NUREG-0396 considered spectrum of credible accidents for the jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 preparedness is risk-informed rather several possible rationales for facility. The proposed rule would apply than risk-based, and therefore establishing the size of the EPZs, the same dose standard for emergency planning is independent of including risk, cost effectiveness, and predetermined protective actions to accident probability. the accident consequence spectrum SMRs or ONTs as is required of the The NRC has reviewed the current EP (dose, significant health effects). After current operating large LWRs. By requirements associated with various reviewing these alternatives, the NRC- maintaining this consistency, the nuclear facilities, including large and EPA task force concluded that the regulations described in proposed VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28445

§ 50.33(g)(2) would afford the same level Reactors, and Non-power Production or prior to exceeding dose thresholds or of protection of the public health and Utilization Facilities (ADAMS PAGs.

safety as the current regulatory Accession No. ML18082A044).

This proposed rule would require Performance-Based Framework framework.

The principle of using dose savings to applicants to submit an analysis under This proposed rule would create a determine EPZ size has been used in the proposed § 50.33(g)(2) to justify the new section, § 50.160, that would past when the NRC licensed several technical basis for the proposed plume provide a performance-based EP small reactors with a reduced EPZ size exposure pathway EPZ size. The NRC framework for SMRs and ONTs, which of 5 miles (8 km). These reactors include would then evaluate each application would be an alternative to the current the Fort St. Vrain high-temperature gas- on a case-specific basis. The regulations. Under proposed cooled reactor (HTGR) (842 MWt), the Emergency Planning Zones section in § 50.54(q)(2)(ii), licensees would be Big Rock Point boiling water reactor this document contains additional required to follow and maintain an (BWR) (240 MWt), and the La Crosse discussion on the NRCs consequence- emergency plan that meets the BWR (165 MWt). oriented approach to EPZ size requirements in either § 50.160 or With the expected safety determinations for an SMR or ONT appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and, enhancements in SMR designs and the facility. except for NPUF licensees, the planning potential for reduced accident source This proposed rule does not provide standards of § 50.47(b). Proposed terms and fission product releases, the for a specific ingestion pathway §§ 50.34 and 52.79, Contents of NRC is proposing that SMR applicants planning zone. The NRC is proposing applications; technical information in would develop reduced EPZ sizes ingestion response planning final safety analysis report, would commensurate with their accident requirements instead of an IPZ at a set stipulate that SMR and ONT applicants source terms, fission product releases, distance as part of the performance- would have the option to choose either and accident dose characteristics. Pre- based framework. Ingestion response approach. Proposed § 50.160 would application conversations between the planning focuses planning efforts on include: (1) Emergency response NRC and SMR designers have indicated identification of major onsite and offsite functions that must be demonstrated that SMRs also could have reduced exposure pathways for ingestion of through the regular development and offsite dose consequences in the contaminated food and water. This maintenance of performance objectives unlikely event of an accident. proposed rule would require applicants and periodic drills and exercises, (2)

To support this proposed rule, the and licensees who comply with § 50.160 onsite and offsite planning activities to NRC conducted research about EPZ size to describe in their emergency plan the be met by applicants and licensees to determinations for SMRs and ONTs. licensee, Federal, Tribal, State, and local which the proposed provision applies, Because of the uncertainty and potential resources for emergency response (3) requirements for considering variation in SMR or ONT designs, the capabilities available to sample, assess, credible hazards associated with NRC cannot conduct a comprehensive and implement a quarantine or embargo contiguous or nearby NRC-licensed and evaluation of source terms and spectra of food and water to protect against non-licensed industrial facilities, and of accidents as part of this proposed contaminated food and water entering (4) a requirement for applicants and rule. Instead, the research study, the ingestion pathway. For those licensees to determine and describe in Generalized Dose Assessment applicants and licensees using the emergency plan the boundary and Methodology for Informing Emergency § 50.47(b) and appendix E to 10 CFR physical characteristics of the plume Planning Zone Size Determinations part 50, the IPZ requirements would exposure pathway EPZ and ingestion (ADAMS Accession No. ML18064A317), remain unchanged. response planning capabilities.

dated June 2018, reviewed the dose These emergency response Licensees would be required under assessment methodologies that informed capabilities are implemented either by proposed § 50.160(b)(1) to demonstrate the EPZ size determinations in NUREG- the licensee within the site boundary or effective response in drills and 0396 and developed a general by Federal, Tribal, State, and local exercises, and describe in their methodology for determining plume authorities in the intermediate or later- emergency plans how they will exposure pathway EPZ size based on stage response to an accident involving maintain preparedness. To comply, NUREG-0396. That review, and a the release of radioactive material. emergency plans would need to include subsequent set of recommended Although the sampling, assessing, and a description of how the emergency analyses documented in Required imposing of a quarantine or embargo are response functions in proposed Analyses for Informing Emergency longer-term issues, some immediate, § 50.160(b)(1)(iii) and the planning Planning Zone Size Determinations precautionary actions could be taken activities in proposed § 50.160(b)(1)(iv),

(ADAMS Accession No. ML18114A176), prior to a significant release occurring. if applicable, would be met.

dated June 2018, can be used in For example, Tribal, State, and local The NRC has a long history of conjunction with the criterion that the authorities could instruct individual successful implementation of EPZ should encompass an area such farmers to wash vegetables and fruits performance-based EP requirements that public dose does not exceed 10 and to place livestock in fields, such as (e.g., performance-based requirements mSv (1 rem) TEDE over 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> from cows, goats, sheep, and so forth, on for emergency facilities and staffing, and the release of radioactive materials stored feed. Federal, Tribal, and State the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)).5 resulting from a spectrum of credible authorities frequently issue similar Under the proposed performance-based accidents (design-basis accidents, less precautionary actions, or implement approach to EP, performance and results severe accidents, and less probable but quarantines or embargos for non-jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 are the primary basis for regulatory more severe accidents) at the SMR or radiological contamination of foods. decision-making, and the applicant or ONT facility. The information from Further, Federal resources are available licensee has the flexibility to determine these reports was used to develop the upon request to Tribal, State, and local how to meet the established methodology described in Appendix A response to any nuclear or radiological performance criteria for an effective EP of DG-1350, Performance-Based incident. Current State and local plans Emergency Preparedness for Small include sampling, assessing, and 5 For further information on the ROP, see: https://

Modular Reactors, Non-Light Water implementing precautionary actions www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/oversight.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28446 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules program. The performance-based analysis report, applicants also have the for an OL or COL, or for an ESP that regimen would focus on actual option of proposing major features of contains plans for coping with performance competencies, rather than emergency plans (under § 52.17(b)(2)(i)) emergencies, and the plume exposure control of emergency plans and or complete and integrated emergency pathway EPZ extends beyond the site procedures. Regulatory oversight would plans (under § 52.17(b)(2)(ii)) for review boundary (as defined in § 20.1003, focus on performance, instead of and approval. Applicants for OLs and Definitions), the applicant must processes and procedures. The COLs, as well as ESP applicants submit Tribal, State, and local performance-based regimen would choosing to provide emergency plans emergency response plans.

provide the NRC with enhanced under § 52.17(b)(2)(ii), must submit The requirements in proposed oversight of the actual competencies radiological emergency response plans § 50.33(g)(2) also include submission of important to the protection of public of State and local government agencies an analysis for determining the plume health and safety while allowing wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway EPZ size, which is applicants and licensees increased exposure pathway EPZ and State discussed in the Emergency Planning flexibility. governments wholly or partially within Zones section of this document.

The performance-based requirements the IPZ under § 50.33(g). Under Performance Objectives in proposed § 50.160 address the most §§ 50.34(b)(6)(v) and 52.79, OL and COL risk-significant aspects of EP (e.g., applicants also must include in their Applicants and licensees adopting the classification, notification, protective final safety analysis report (FSAR) their performance-based regulations would action recommendation, mitigation), as plans for coping with emergencies. need to describe how they intend to well as several planning activities Because SMR and ONT licensees maintain the effectiveness of their currently required under appendix E to would be given a choice between emergency plans to meet the 10 CFR part 50. Compliance under the complying with either proposed performance-based requirements, which proposed framework would be § 50.160 or the requirements in includes the implementation of a demonstrated by performance during appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and, performance objective scheme that drills or exercises and the NRCs review except for NPUF licensees, the planning reflects the emergency response of performance objectives and corrective standards in § 50.47, this proposed rule functions under proposed actions. The NRC, in consultation with includes a number of conforming § 50.160(b)(1)(iii). The NRC anticipates FEMA when the EPZ extends beyond changes to clarify application that performance objectives needed to the site boundary, would still make requirements for applicants choosing demonstrate compliance with reasonable assurance determinations on the performance-based requirements. performance-based requirements would emergency plans, but the determination

• Construction permit and OL vary by design. Therefore, future would be based on demonstrations of applicants would still need to include additional guidance may be developed required emergency response functions emergency planning information in by the NRC or by the industry related through drills and exercises and NRC their PSARs and FSARs, respectively, to performance objectives for specific inspections. Between drills and and proposed § 50.34(a)(10) and (b)(6)(v) designs or classes of designs.

exercises, licensees would maintain a would clarify that the information Proposed § 50.160(b)(1)(ii) would set of performance objectives to measure should describe how the applicant require applicants and licensees to emergency response performance. See would comply with either appendix E to describe in the emergency plan an the Reasonable Assurance section of 10 CFR part 50 or proposed § 50.160. approach to develop and maintain at the this document for a discussion of how

• Combined license and ESP beginning of each calendar quarter a list the proposed approach would maintain applicants would need to continue to of performance objectives for that reasonable assurance that adequate include emergency planning calendar quarter. Each licensee also protective measures can and will be information in their site safety analysis would maintain records showing the taken in the event of a radiological report and FSAR; proposed implemented performance objectives emergency. §§ 52.17(b)(2), 52.18, and 52.79(a)(21) and associated metrics during each would clarify that the information calendar quarter for the previous eight Application Process should describe how the applicant calendar quarters. The NRC would Current applicants for a construction would comply with either the monitor the performance objectives and permit (CP), early site permit (ESP), applicable requirements in § 50.47 and metrics under the ROP to ensure that operating license (OL), or combined appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, or the licensees are maintaining adequate license (COL) are required to provide proposed requirements in § 50.160. emergency planning and preparedness.

emergency planning information as

• Applicants choosing to comply During evaluated exercises, the NRC described under § 50.33, § 50.34, with proposed § 50.160 would need to would assess the performance of the

§ 52.17, Contents of applications; describe how their emergency plans will licensee and review the ability of the technical information, or § 52.79. In meet the performance-based licensee to take corrective actions in a particular, § 50.34(a)(10) requires requirements in proposed § 50.160(b). A timely manner before performance applicants for CPs to describe within the proposed revision to § 52.1, decreases below performance objective preliminary safety analysis report Definitions, would clarify that, for thresholds. In addition, licensees would (PSAR) their preliminary plans for applicants choosing the performance- need to identify downward trends in the coping with emergencies. Under based approach, the definition for implementation of performance

§ 52.17(b), applicants for ESPs must major feature of the emergency plans objectives or indications that a identify within their site safety analysis includes aspects of plans necessary to performance objective has crossed a jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 report physical characteristics of the address the requirements of proposed threshold as part of their corrective proposed site that could pose a § 50.160(b). action program required under significant impediment to the

• Proposed § 50.33(g)(2)(i)(A) would § 50.160(b)(1)(iii)(H).

development of emergency plans and, as clarify requirements to submit Tribal, applicable, measures for mitigating or State, and local emergency response Drills and Exercises eliminating the significant plans for SMR, non-LWR, and NPUF A key feature of this proposed rule impediments. Within the site safety applicants. Namely, if the application is would be the use of drills and exercises VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28447 to demonstrate that the applicants and

• Event classification and mitigation. functions (e.g., communications, licensees EP program is capable of The applicant or licensee would need to command and control of operations, carrying out an effective response in the establish an emergency classification notification of OROs, accident/incident event of emergency and accident and action level scheme with assessment, information dissemination conditions. Current regulations in established criteria for determining the to OROs and media, radiological appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, section need for notification of Tribal, State, monitoring, protective response, IV.F and § 50.47(b)(14) include and local agencies, and participation of security) would be maintained around requirements for periodic drills and those agencies in emergency response the clock throughout the emergency.

exercises for nuclear power reactor such that demonstration of the scheme

• Staffing and operations. The drills licensees. Proposed § 50.160(b)(1)(iii) can be achieved through the or exercises would need to demonstrate would establish the emergency response performance of drills or exercises within effective emergency response with the functions to be demonstrated through a performance-based framework. level of staffing at the SMR or ONT as drills and exercises. Unlike the existing Applicants and licensees would need to described in the emergency plan. There drill and exercise requirements in demonstrate the ability to assess, would need to be sufficient on-shift staff appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, the classify, monitor, and repair facility to perform all necessary tasks until proposed performance-based malfunctions and return the facility to augmenting staff arrive to provide requirements would not define the safe conditions. The term safe assistance. This is of particular interest required frequency of drills and conditions means that the facility has to the NRC because of the potential for exercises or their scenarios. However, been restored to a radiologically safe reduced staffing levels at SMRs and the NRC anticipates that applicants and and stable condition. The requirements ONTs, as compared to large LWRs. For licensees would adopt an exercise cycle of this section are not meant to apply to example, some SMR and ONT designs of eight years during which licensees severe accident management guidelines, may use multiple modules at one site would vary the content of exercise extensive damage mitigation guidelines, with a single, centralized control room.

scenarios to provide ERO members the or other non-emergency plan Designers have indicated that they are opportunity to demonstrate proficiency implementing procedures or programs. considering designs that can operate in the key skills necessary to respond to

• Protective actions. The drill and with a staffing complement that is less several specific scenario elements. exercise program would need to than what is currently required of large Applicants and licensees would be demonstrate that consequences to onsite LWRs by § 50.54(m), which sets forth required to describe exercise scenario personnel could be reduced through the the minimum licensed operator staffing elements necessary to demonstrate the effective use of protective actions. requirements. Under this proposed rule, emergency response functions in their Applicants and licensees would need to drills and exercises would provide the emergency plans. Under proposed demonstrate the ability to recommend NRC the opportunity to consider the

§ 50.160(c), prior to operating the protective actions to offsite authorities sufficiency of emergency response facility, the NRC also would require the as conditions warrant. staffing to implement the roles and applicant for an OL or a holder of a COL

• Communications. The drill and responsibilities described in the prior to the Commissions § 52.103(g) exercise program would need to emergency plan. The performance finding to conduct an initial exercise to demonstrate that control room staff are opportunities would allow applicant demonstrate the effectiveness of the EP capable of making effective and licensee staff to develop, maintain, program no later than 18 months before communications to the ERO, including or demonstrate key skills and provide the issuance of the OL for the applicant emergency response personnel. Control applicants, licensees, and the NRC the or 18 months before fuel loading for the room staff and the emergency response opportunity to identify and correct any COL holder. team must have a means for maintaining weaknesses or deficiencies.

For facilities with EPZs that do not communication with the NRC as

• Radiological Assessment. During extend beyond the site boundary, OROs needed, and with OROs based on prior the proposed drills or exercises, control would not be required to participate in arrangements. For example, the room staff, on-shift personnel, and the radiological drills and exercises. applicant or licensee would need to emergency response team would need to Participation would not be required notify and maintain communications demonstrate the ability to assess because Tribal, State, and local with the fire brigade, rescue squad or radiological conditions, including the government organizations would not medical dispatch, and law enforcement ability to monitor and assess dose to need to take specialized actions in according to established agreements. As personnel resulting from radiological response to an event, other than EP programs are developed, applicants releases and inadvertent criticality providing onsite firefighting, law and licensees would need to determine accidents; conduct radiological surveys; enforcement, and ambulance/medical if notification to OROs is appropriate. If assess and report information to the services. Applicants and licensees may notification to OROs is necessary, then ERO such as early indications of loss of consider allowing Tribal, State, or local drills and exercises would need to adequate core cooling and radiological government organizations to participate demonstrate notifying the Tribal, State, releases, including the release of in drills when requested by the offsite and local officials of an emergency. hazardous chemicals produced from authorities. The Offsite Radiological

• Command and control. The drill or licensed material; use protective Emergency Preparedness Planning exercise would need to demonstrate equipment; and demonstrate Activities section of this document continuity of operations through one or implementation of onsite protective addresses ORO participation for more shift changes of emergency actions.

facilities with EPZs that extend beyond response personnel, including the

• Reentry. Reentry is the temporary jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 the site boundary. augmentation of the ERO. The movement of people into an area of Under proposed § 50.160(b)(1)(iii), the applicants or licensees supporting actual or potential hazard. The applicants or licensees emergency organizational structure would need to applicant or licensee also would need to response team would need to have have defined roles, responsibilities, and demonstrate general plans for reentry sufficient capability to demonstrate the authorities, and the drill or exercise after an emergency through drills or following emergency response would need to show how key exercises. The applicant or licensee functions: emergency response organization would need to demonstrate reentry VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28448 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules plans for the site boundary, including Safeguards Contingency Plan. In arrangements with OROs for offsite determining when facility conditions implementing the emergency response radiological emergency response, are acceptable to justify reentry (e.g., plan, licensees should coordinate including the roles of each organization based on air and soil sampling and security-related and emergency in the ERO. Applicants and licensees analysis to determine levels of response activities to ensure an would need to ensure regular radiological contamination and adequate and efficient response to a coordination with these organizations, projected dose). Certain individuals radiological event. In proposed including review of emergency plan who have been evacuated or relocated § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(A)(3), the NRC would changes.

from a restricted area may be allowed to require applicants and licensees to have

• Notification of OROs. Applicants reenter under controlled conditions to the capability to establish voice and and licensees would need to establish perform specified activities. data communications with the NRC for primary and backup means of notifying

• Critique and corrective actions. The use during emergencies. Voice OROs and a message authentication performance of emergency response communication through the Emergency scheme. The emergency plan would functions, including the outcomes of Notification System (ENS) and data need to include the proposed time drills and exercises (or responses to communication through an electronic period within which notifications to actual emergencies), would be evaluated data link would provide timely updates OROs would be made.

to identify areas for improvement in the to the NRC on the implementation of the

• Protective measures. Applicants EP program. The applicant or licensee emergency plan during and after an and licensees would need to maintain would need to use a corrective action emergency. Finally, proposed the capability to issue offsite protective program to evaluate, track, and correct § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(A)(4) would require action recommendations to OROs (e.g.,

EP deficiencies. Deficiencies may applicants and licensees to have the evacuation, sheltering). The emergency include items such as errors in the capability to establish emergency plan would need to describe the emergency plan or implementing response facilities to support the procedures by which protective procedures, ERO weaknesses identified emergency response functions required measures are implemented, maintained, in drills or exercises, downward trends in § 50.160(b). Applicants and licensees and discontinued in their emergency in the achievement of performance would need to establish a facility from plans.

objectives or indications that a which effective direction can be given

• Offsite agency training. Applicants performance objective has crossed a and effective control can be executed for and licensees would need to provide threshold, or degraded conditions in the duration of an emergency. site familiarization training to emergency response facilities, systems, Depending on design- and site-specific individuals whose assistance may be and equipment. Corrective actions may considerations, applicants and licensees needed in the event of a radiological require a variety of actions, including may need to establish multiple emergency, including personnel from remedial exercises to demonstrate that emergency response facilities to offsite organizations.

the deficiencies have been fully demonstrate the capability to support

• Evacuation time estimate study.

addressed. emergency response functions. Applicants and licensees would need to Emergency plans would need to include conduct an evacuation time estimate Planning Activities (ETE) study and maintain the ETE up-descriptions of the facilities functional In addition to an applicants or capabilities, activation times, staffing, to-date. The methodologies described in licensees performance demonstrations and communication systems. existing NRC published or endorsed through drills and exercises, the NRC is guidance should be used to prepare the proposing a set of required planning Offsite Radiological Emergency ETE.

activities in § 50.160(b)(1)(iv) to account Preparedness Planning Activities

• Emergency response facilities.

for certain EP-related activities that are Current requirements for offsite Applicants and licensees would need to not readily observable or effectively radiological emergency response plans describe in their emergency plans an measured through drills and exercises. are included in § 50.47 and appendix E offsite facility and any backup facilities This proposed rule includes two sets of to 10 CFR part 50 and, in select cases, for coordination of the response with planning activities: § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(A) the NRC has granted exemptions from OROs.

would establish planning activities for these requirements to licensees based

• Offsite dose projections. Applicants all applicants and licensees complying partially on a demonstration that an and licensees would need to be capable with § 50.160; and § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(B) offsite radiological release would not of making offsite dose assessments and would establish planning activities that exceed the EPA PAGs at the site communicating their results to OROs.

would apply to applicants and licensees boundary. For SMR and ONT applicants The emergency plan would need to with a plume exposure pathway EPZ and licensees complying with proposed describe the methods and instruments that extends beyond the site boundary. § 50.160 that establish a plume exposure available for conducting these Currently, § 50.47(b) requires pathway EPZ at the site boundary, the assessments.

licensees to be capable of maintaining NRC would not mandate offsite

• Dissemination of public prompt communication among the radiological emergency planning information. Applicants and licensees response organizations and the public. activities. Proposed § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(B) would need to describe in their In proposed § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(A)(1), would establish offsite planning emergency plans the means of providing SMR and ONT applicants and licensees activities that must be described in the initial and updated information to the would be required to be capable of emergency plan for applicants and public during an emergency (e.g.,

preparing and issuing information to the licensees with plume exposure pathway communication with the news media, jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 public during emergencies to protect EPZs extending beyond the site coordination with OROs). Applicants public health and safety. The NRC is boundary. These activities would and licensees would need to describe proposing in § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(A)(2) that include: the public alert and notification system.

applicants and licensees also must be

• Contacts/arrangements with

• Reentry. Applicants and licensees capable of implementing the NRC- governmental agencies. Applicants and would need to describe in their approved emergency response plan in licensees would need to describe in emergency plans coordination with conjunction with the Licensee emergency plans their contacts and OROs on offsite reentry plans including VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28449 the conditions necessary to allow with plume exposure pathway EPZs at Preparedness Goal,8 Core Capabilities,9 reentry. Some conditions may include: the site boundary would not affect the National Preparedness System,10 (1) Use of access control points to issue authority that FEMA has under its National Planning Frameworks),11 in dosimetry and train reentering regulations in Chapter I, Federal which the NRC participates, to improve individuals on its use; (2) use of stay Emergency Management Agency, the state of emergency planning at all times (as used here, the amount of time Department of Homeland Security, of levels of government and within the a person can safely stay in a restricted 44 CFR, Emergency Management and whole community.12 Consequently, for zone without exceeding their exposure Assistance, for overall emergency SMR and ONT facilities with plume limit), depending on the location of the management and assistance to State and exposure pathway EPZs at the site reentry destination; (3) use of a health local response organizations. Nor would boundary, there is reasonable assurance physicist escort or other personnel that appropriate response actions can it affect the responsibilities of State and escort trained in the use of dosimetry; and will be taken in the event of a and (4) provision of monitoring and local governments to establish and radiological emergency, without the decontamination for exiting individuals. maintain comprehensive emergency need for regulatory standards for offsite Reentry plans would cover private management plans. Under its role as radiological emergency response plans citizens. For example, reentry plans may described in the National Response and the associated FEMA findings and cover scenarios such as farmers being Framework, the NRC remains ready to determinations that offsite plans are permitted to reenter the affected area to provide FEMA and State and local adequate and can be implemented.

provide essential care for livestock. governments with technical advice

• Offsite drills and exercises. related to the safety and security of any Changes to Emergency Plans Applicants and licensees would need to proposed SMR or ONT facility. Section 50.54(q) currently establishes describe in their emergency plans how the process for evaluation, submission, In cases where the plume exposure offsite radiological emergency response and review of changes to emergency pathway EPZ does not extend beyond is incorporated into their drill and plans. The NRC is proposing that SMRs the site boundary, even in the absence and ONTs continue to follow the exercises. Drill and exercise scenarios of NRC requirements for offsite existing process for changes to would need to incorporate offsite response, and applicants and licensees radiological emergency planning, the emergency plans, whether the facilities would need to coordinate with offsite responsible OROs would continue to are following the performance-based organizations, including FEMA, for their take actions to protect the health and approach to EP under proposed § 50.160 participation in drills and exercises and safety of the public. As provided for in or the approach to EP under appendix implementation of corrective actions. the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. E to 10 CFR part 50. The NRCs proposal

• Emergency plan maintenance. Constitution and State constitutions and includes a number of conforming Applicants and licensees would need to statutes, State and local governments are changes to § 50.54(q).

maintain up-to-date the emergency plan, responsible for the overall protection of Existing § 50.54(q)(2) requires contacts and arrangements with OROs, public health and safety in their licensees to follow and maintain the procedures, and ETEs. Emergency plans localities when the Federal government effectiveness of an emergency plan that would need to include a description of does not have such authority. Each of meets the planning standards in the periodic coordination with OROs. the states has established an emergency § 50.47(b) and the requirements in In carrying out its responsibility management organization to facilitate appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, and under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the safeguarding of the life and property existing § 50.54(q)(3) and (4) describe as amended (AEA), the NRC establishes of its citizens.6 Based on the NRCs the process for analyzing, submitting, regulatory standards for onsite and and making changes to emergency evaluation of a limited set of ORO offsite radiological emergency planning. plans. The NRC is proposing to revise capabilities in NUREG/CR-7248, If an applicants or licensees emergency § 50.54(q)(2) through (4) to include plan meets the NRCs regulations, then Capabilities and Practices of Offsite cross-references to the requirements the NRC has reasonable assurance that Response Organizations for Protective under proposed § 50.160 for licensees adequate protective measures can and Actions in the Intermediate Phase of a choosing the performance-based will be taken in the event of a Radiological Emergency Response approach and to clarify that licensees radiological emergency. In the case of (ADAMS Accession No. ML18170A043), must follow and maintain an emergency existing EP regulations for NPUFs, fuel dated June 2018, the NRC has high plan that meets either the applicable cycle facilities, and ISFSIs, there are no confidence in the ability of OROs to requirements of § 50.160 or the regulatory requirements for dedicated implement appropriate response actions requirements of appendix E to 10 CFR offsite radiological emergency plans as when necessary. The OROs general part 50 and, except for NPUF licensees, part of the NRC license. Accordingly, emergency response capabilities are not the planning standards of § 50.47(b).

NRC guidance for such facilities states unique to radiological emergency The NRC is not proposing any changes that FEMA findings and determinations response. The NRCs confidence is to the emergency plan change process.

are not needed to support NRC licensing further strengthened by the NRCs decisions. Similarly, for SMRs and regulations in § 50.47(c)(1)(iii) and the 8 For further information on the National ONTs within the scope of this proposed NRCs recognition of national-level Preparedness Goal, see: https://www.fema.gov/

rule, FEMA findings and determinations national-preparedness-goal.

efforts (e.g., National Incident 9 For further information on Core Capabilities, regarding reasonable assurance under Management System,7 National see: https://www.fema.gov/core-capabilities.

proposed § 50.54(s)(3) would only be jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 10 For further information on the National needed for a facility where the plume Preparedness System, see: https://www.fema.gov/

exposure pathway EPZ extends beyond 6 See FEMAs Emergency Management Agencies national-preparedness-system.

11 For further information on the National the site boundary requiring dedicated website https://www.fema.gov/emergency- Planning Frameworks, see: https://www.fema.gov/

offsite radiological EP plans for the management-agencies. national-planning-frameworks.

facility. 7 For further information on the National Incident 12 For more information on the definition of The NRCs proposal not to require Management System, see: https://www.fema.gov/ whole community, see: https://www.fema.gov/

offsite planning activities for facilities pdf/emergency/nims/nimsfaqs.pdf. whole-community#.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28450 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules Licensees choosing the performance- Hazard Analysis of Contiguous or assessment of all postulated accident based approach to EP would need to Nearby Facilities scenarios at the other facilities. The evaluate changes to their emergency The NRC anticipates that SMRs and applicants or licensees EP program plans against the performance-based ONTs may be located on the same site would reflect these credible hazards and requirements under proposed § 50.160 or close to large LWRs or other types of the planning activities needed to using the same reduction in reactors; industrial, military, or address the hazards. For example, the effectiveness criteria as current transportation facilities; or a location of facilities on the same site or licensees and would still need to submit combination of these or other facilities. close to an SMR or ONT may affect the changes that reduce the effectiveness of The presence of such facilities would applicants or licensees determinations the plan to the NRC for approval prior require additional EP considerations about the EPZ size. Looking across all relative to an independently sited facilities, the applicant or licensee to implementation. The definition of facility. For example, SMRs or ONTs would assess the combined radiological emergency planning function under and industrial hazards at the site.

proposed § 50.54(q)(1) would be revised may need to be prepared for events The NRC is issuing DG-1350 for to remove references to appendix E and associated with other contiguous or public comment with this proposed rule

§ 50.47(b) because emergency planning nearby facilities proximate hazards. that includes guidance on hazard functions would be addressed under Although the NRCs regulations do analyses for contiguous or nearby both these sections and under the not extend to the licensing, operations, facilities.

proposed § 50.160, and the NRC does or oversight of non-nuclear facilities, the NRC has authority over the activities of Emergency Planning Zones not consider the references essential to NRC applicants and licensees that are The NRC is proposing a consequence-the definition.

located on or close to an industrial site oriented, technology-inclusive approach For any existing or future holder of an or other non-licensed facility. For to EPZ size determinations for SMRs operating or combined license for an example, a nuclear power facility could and ONTs. This proposed approach is SMR or non-LWR, or any future holder be sited contiguous or nearby to an similar to the dose/distance rationale of an operating license for an NPUF, industrial facility to supply process heat historically used by the NRC in part to proposed § 50.54(q)(7) would stipulate or electrical power, or an SMR could be determine EPZ size for production or that a licensee desiring to change its used to power a desalination facility utilization facilities. Under the existing emergency plan to comply with the located on the same site. There are regulations, SMRs or ONTs, depending performance-based approach to EP many potential examples of licensees on their capacity and technology, are would need to submit a license that may be located contiguous or either required to establish a 10-mile amendment request with the proposed nearby to a non-licensed facility but, (16-km) plume exposure pathway EPZ changes to its emergency plan. The under each scenario, the hazards of the and a 50-mile (80-km) IPZ or follow the request would need to include an non-licensed facility must be factored case-by-case EPZ size determination explanation of the schedule and into the EP program of the nuclear process under §§ 50.33(g), 50.47(c)(2),

analyses supporting the implementation facility to ensure the protection of and section I.3. of appendix E to 10 CFR of a performance-based EP program. public health and safety, and the part 50. Pre-application discussions and environment. previous applications for EP exemption Emergency Response Data System For SMR or ONT applicants and requests from SMRs and ONTs have licensees located contiguous or nearby indicated that these technologies could Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, section to another facility, proposed have reduced offsite dose consequences VI, Emergency Response Data System, § 50.160(b)(2) would require the in the unlikely event of an accident, and outlines a set of system, testing, and applicant or licensee to perform a the standard 10-mile (16-km) and 50-implementation requirements for the hazard analysis to assess any credible mile (80-km) EPZs may not be necessary emergency response data system (ERDS) hazards that would adversely impact the to ensure public health and safety for for operating nuclear power reactor implementation of emergency plans at these facilities. Because of the range of licensees, and § 50.72, Immediate the SMR or ONT facility. The analysis potential source terms and designs for notification requirements for operating would need to identify site-specific, SMRs or ONTs, the NRC is proposing an nuclear power reactors, includes credible hazards from other, non- alternative scalable methodology for requirements for activation of ERDS. In nuclear facilities that require the determining EPZ size on a case-specific contrast, the 10 CFR part 50, appendix applicants or licensees emergency plan basis. This methodology would be E ERDS requirement and § 50.72 ERDS to include arrangements that would established in guidance (DG-1350) activation requirement would not be otherwise not be needed in the absence generically without design- or site-applicable to applicants and licensees of the facility. For example, these specific information regarding source choosing to comply with § 50.160. arrangements might include notifying term, fission products, or projected Applicants and licensees choosing contiguous or nearby facilities regarding offsite dose. Applicants would provide

§ 50.160 would be required to describe emergencies, classifying a hazard from the design- and site-specific information in their emergency plans the data links another facility that may negatively regarding source term, fission products, impact the safe operation of the nuclear or projected offsite dose for NRC review with the NRC for use in emergencies.

facility, and providing for protective in an application.

Specific parameters to be reported actions for the other facilitys personnel As mentioned in the Technical would be determined for the specific or other on-site individuals, such as Basis section of this document, jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 technology during the license visitors. A credible hazard could NUREG-0396 established the planning application process under 10 CFR part include any event at another facilitys basis for EP and established EPZs for 50 or 10 CFR part 52. The NRC would site that would lead to an emergency large LWRs based on the conclusion that review each applicants data response at the SMR or ONT facility. It the objective of emergency response transmission capabilities on a case- may be appropriate for SMRs or ONTs plans should be to provide dose savings specific basis. The NRC is not proposing with contiguous or nearby facilities to for a spectrum of accidents that could any changes to its ERDS regulations. consider a quantitative or qualitative produce offsite doses in excess of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28451 EPA PAGs. The NRC is proposing an regulatory requirements as long as biological contamination demonstrates EPZ size determination process that is appropriately supported and justified. that a response to prevent ingestion of consistent with this philosophy. Upon receiving an OL, COL, ESP, or contaminated foods and water could be Proposed § 50.33(g)(2) would establish CP applicants technical basis for performed in an expeditious manner an EPZ size determination process for proposed site-specific plume exposure without a predetermined planning zone.

SMR, non-LWR, and NPUF applicants pathway EPZ size, the NRC would review the design and licensing Implementation complying with § 50.160. Small modular reactor and non-LWR information to ensure that the The NRC is proposing applicants for an OL, COL, CP, or ESP information that the applicants provide implementation schedules for existing and NPUF applicants for a CP or OL on the offsite dose consequences is and future applicants and licensees of would be required to submit the commensurate with the requested EPZ facilities choosing to comply with analysis used to establish their proposed size and that the applicable proposed § 50.160. Per the requirements plume exposure pathway EPZ size. performance-based requirements are of proposed § 50.160(c)(1), an applicant Applicants would need to establish met to ensure adequate protection of for an operating license issued under 10 their EPZ as the area within which public health and safety and the CFR part 50 after the effective date of public dose, as defined in § 20.1003, is environment. Some of this information this proposed rule desiring to comply projected to exceed 10 mSv (or 1 rem) may have already been provided as part with the performance-based approach to TEDE over 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> from the release of of a certified design referenced in an EP and within the scope of that radioactive materials resulting from a application or in a topical report related approach as stated in this proposed rule spectrum of credible accidents for the to the design. The NRC would consider would be required to establish, facility. If the plume exposure pathway an appropriate spectrum of accidents to implement, and maintain an EP program EPZ extends beyond the site boundary provide a basis for judging the adequacy that meets the requirements of proposed and if the application is for an SMR or of features such as functional § 50.160(b) and conduct an initial non-LWR OL, COL, an ESP that contains containment design and the need for exercise to demonstrate this compliance plans for coping with emergencies offsite emergency planning. The NRC no later than 18 months before the under § 52.17(b)(2)(ii), or an ESP that also would assess the need to provide issuance of an operating license for the proposes major features of the site-specific guidance concerning the first unit described in the license emergency plans and describes the EPZ, accident scenarios being considered. application. Per the requirements of In addition to the proposed plume § 50.160(c)(2), a holder of a combined then proposed § 50.33(g)(2) would exposure pathway EPZ size license issued under 10 CFR part 52 require that the exact configuration of determination process, the NRC is desiring to comply with the the plume exposure pathway EPZ be proposing to include ingestion response performance-based approach to EP determined in relation to local planning requirements under proposed before the Commission has made the emergency response needs and

§ 50.160(b)(4). Applicants and licensees finding under § 52.103(g) would be capabilities, as they are affected by such complying with proposed § 50.160 required to establish, implement, and conditions as demography, topography, would be required to describe in their maintain an emergency preparedness land characteristics, access routes, and emergency plans the capabilities to program that meets the requirements of jurisdictional boundaries. Proposed protect contaminated food and water proposed § 50.160(b), as described in

§ 50.160(b)(3) would require applicants from entering the ingestion pathway. the emergency plan and license, and and licensees to incorporate the The capabilities described in the conduct an initial exercise to boundaries and physical descriptions of emergency plan would need to address demonstrate this compliance no later the EPZ into their emergency plans. major exposure pathways associated than 18 months before the scheduled To support the technical basis for this with the ingestion of contaminated food date for initial loading of fuel.

proposed rule, the NRC conducted and water. The duration of any exposure As discussed in the Changes to research studies (ADAMS Accession to contaminated food or water could Emergency Plans section of this Nos. ML18064A317 and range from hours to months and document, for existing or future SMRs ML18114A176), dated June 2018 to represents a long-term response need. or ONTs that hold operating or support EPZ size determinations for Even in cases where the facilitys plume combined licenses, proposed SMRs and ONTs. Supported by the exposure pathway EPZ is bounded by § 50.54(q)(7) would stipulate that results of these studies, the NRC is the site boundary, the applicant or facilities desiring to change their including guidance in Appendix A to licensee would reference capabilities of emergency plans to comply with the DG-1350 for determining the EPZ size Federal, Tribal, State, and local Federal performance-based approach to EP, based on the NRC staffs evaluation of authorities. shall submit a license amendment a spectrum of accidents and the Three notable incidents documented request with these proposed changes.

criterion in proposed § 50.33(g)(2) that by the Center for Disease Control and the plume exposure pathway EPZ Prevention that demonstrate the Reasonable Assurance should be established as the area in capability to conduct large-scale The NRCs authority to regulate the which public dose is projected to quarantines are the multi-state use of radioactive materials is set forth exceed 10 mSV (1 rem) TEDE over 96 outbreaks of E. Coli O157:H7 infections in the AEA and Title II of the Energy hours from the release of a spectrum of from spinach (September-October Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended credible accidents for the facility. In the 2006), the multi-state outbreak of (ERA). Both the AEA and ERA confer DG, the NRC is providing general human salmonella enteritis infections broad regulatory powers to the jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 guidance and anticipates that industry associated with shell eggs (July- Commission and specifically authorize will develop and implement detailed December 2010), and the multi-state it to issue regulations it deems design-specific calculations for NRC outbreak of fungal meningitis and other necessary to fulfill its responsibilities review and approval. The NRCs infections (October 2012). In each case, under those statutes. Section 161.b of guidance is not a regulatory requirement the successful quarantine and removal the AEA authorizes the Commission to and applicants and licensees may use from public access of contaminated food establish by rule, regulation, or order alternative approaches to meeting and water products in response to such standards and instructions to VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28452 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules govern the possession and use of special proposed § 50.160 unless a reasonable under § 50.54(s) will occur after April 1, nuclear material, source material, and assurance finding is made. 1981. The NRC is proposing to delete byproduct material as the Commission For applicants and licensees with after April 1, 1981 and retain the may deem necessary or desirable to plume exposure pathway EPZs beyond remainder of the provision.

promote the common defense and the site boundary, the NRC, in The NRC is proposing to revise these security or to protect health or to consultation with FEMA, would paragraphs in the interest of regulatory minimize danger to life or property. continue to make a determination of clarity. Eliminating these requirements Under Section 161.i of the AEA, the reasonable assurance based on the would not relax currently effective Commission may prescribe such performance-based requirements, as regulatory requirements or cause any regulations or orders, as it may deem demonstrated through drills and regulatory burden for existing or future necessary, to protect health and to exercises. As described in the Offsite licensees.

minimize danger to life or property. Radiological Emergency Preparedness IV. Specific Requests for Comments The NRCs regulations include Planning Activities section of this standards for both onsite and offsite document, the NRC is proposing that The NRC is seeking public comment emergency response plans. The FEMA findings and determinations on this proposed rule. The NRC staff is Commission, based on its authority regarding reasonable assurance under particularly interested in comments and under the AEA, determined that these § 50.54(s)(3) would not be needed for supporting rationale from the public on standards are necessary for operating SMRs or ONTs with plume exposure the following:

power reactors to provide for public pathway EPZs that do not extend

• Terminology used to describe the health and safety. The regulations in beyond the site boundary. The NRC requirements: This proposed rule

§§ 50.47 and 50.54, prescribe how the would continue to make reasonable continues the practice from SECY NRC will make licensing decisions or assurance determinations regarding 0152, Development of an Emergency take appropriate enforcement action by onsite EP requirements for these Planning and Preparedness Framework using findings of reasonable assurance facilities, and every licensee must for Small Modular Reactors, of that adequate protective measures can follow and maintain the effectiveness of describing the alternative framework for and will be taken to protect public its emergency plan if the NRC is to EP as technology-neutral, dose-based, health and safety in the event of a continue to find, under § 50.54(s)(2)(ii), and consequence-oriented. The NRC radiological emergency. The NRC will that there is reasonable assurance that recognizes, however, that the base reasonable assurance findings on: adequate protective measures can and overarching term risk-informed as (1) The NRCs assessment of the will be taken in the event of a defined by the Commission in STAFF adequacy of the applicants or licensees radiological emergency at that site. REQUIREMENTSSECY-98-144 onsite emergency plan and whether White Paper on Risk-Informed and Administrative and Clarifying Changes Performance-Based Regulation there is reasonable assurance the plan to the Regulations (ADAMS Accession No. ML003753601),

can be implemented, and (2) the NRCs review of FEMA findings and The NRC is proposing clarifying includes consideration of both the determinations as to whether Tribal, changes to the following paragraphs. likelihood of a spectrum of events and State, and local emergency plans are 1. Section 50.54(q)(4), which required their consequences. In the context of EP, adequate and whether there is after February 21, 2012, any changes to the consequences of concern would be reasonable assurance that they can be licensees emergency plan that reduce dose. The NRC is therefore considering implemented. the effectiveness of the plan as defined aligning the discussion of the EP The proposed performance-based in paragraph (q)(1)(iv) to be submitted to framework in this rule with its other approach to EP under § 50.160 would the NRC for approval before risk-informed, performance-based provide for an adequate basis for an implementation. As the date of the regulations and considering eliminating acceptable state of EP and ensure that provision has expired, the NRC is the use of the descriptors dose-based coordination and applicable proposing to delete after February 21, and consequence-oriented, but arrangements with offsite agencies are 2012 and retain the remainder of the intends no change to the meaning of the maintained (e.g., notification and provision. proposed regulations. Would such a assistance resources). Reasonable 2. Section 50.54(q)(5), which required change impact the clarity and assurance will be maintained under the licensees to submit a report of each predictability of the regulations?

proposed performance-based approach change made without prior NRC

• Scope of this proposed rule: This through: (1) Submission and case- approval, as allowed under proposed rule would allow SMRs and specific review of design- and site- § 50.54(q)(3), after February 21, 2012, ONTs to establish an alternative specific analyses to support the including a summary of its analysis, performance-based, consequence-proposed plume exposure pathway EPZ within 30 days after the change is put oriented approach to EP. The NRC size; (2) review of site-specific into effect. The NRC is proposing to received a comment on its draft emergency plans to ensure compliance delete after February 21, 2012 from regulatory basis in 2017 that with the proposed performance-based this provision, as the date has expired, recommended that the NRC expand the requirements; (3) demonstration of and retain the remainder of the scope of this proposed rule to include emergency response functions through provision. large LWRs. Large LWRs were not drills and exercises; (4) regular tracking 3. Section 50.54(s)(2)(ii), which included by the NRC in the scope of this of performance objective information; allows the NRC to take enforcement proposed rule because an EP licensing (5) analysis of potential hazards action to shut down power reactors that framework already exists for those jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 associated with contiguous or nearby do not provide reasonable assurance reactors, and licensees for those plants NRC-licensed or non-licensed facilities; that adequate protective measures have not presented a clear interest in and (6) the NRCs inspection and would be taken in the event of a changing that framework. Nonetheless, enforcement program. Proposed radiological emergency after April 1, in light of the public comment on the

§ 50.160(b) would state that the NRC 1981. There is no longer a need for the draft regulatory basis, and although this would not issue an initial operating date requirement of this provision proposed rule is written for SMRs and license to a licensee complying with because any future determinations made ONTs, the NRC is open to considering VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28453 a performance-based, consequence-

• Planning activities: The NRC is food and water, would the need for an oriented approach to EP for large LWRs, proposing four planning activities under IPZ exist? Please provide the basis for fuel cycle facilities, and currently § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(A) that all applicants your answer.

operating NPUFs. and licensees choosing the performance-

• Costs: The NRC recognizes that all Are the proposed non-light-water based approach to EP would need to power reactor applicants will develop a reactor, non-power production or comply with and 11 offsite planning PRA to meet existing requirements and utilization facility, and small modular activities under § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(B) that support development of their reactor definitions in § 50.2 sufficient are designed for applicants and application. The NRC would allow to address EP for existing and licensees with an EPZ that extends applicants the option to further the use anticipated technologies? Are there any beyond the site boundary. These of PRA to support a risk-informed unintended consequences of including planning activities identify certain EP- approach for the development of source each of these classes of facilities within related activities that are not readily terms. The NRC is seeking information the scope of this proposed rule? Please observable and cannot be effectively on the incremental cost estimates for provide the basis for your response. measured through drills and exercises. any additional PRA modeling necessary Should the NRC consider a Are there any planning activities that to generate the credible accident performance-based, consequence- should be added to or removed from the sequences and the development of the oriented approach to EP for entities NRCs proposed list? Please provide the source terms used in determining a site-besides SMRs and ONTs (e.g., large basis for your answer. specific EPZ size.

LWRs, fuel cycle facilities, and

• Hazard analysis for contiguous or nearby facilities: The NRC is proposing V. Section-by-Section Analysis currently operating NPUFs) in a future rulemaking? Please provide a basis for to require applicants and licensees The following paragraphs describe the your response. choosing a performance-based approach specific changes proposed by this If the NRC considers a performance- to EP to submit a hazard analysis under proposed rule.

based, consequence-oriented approach § 50.160(b)(2). To what extent should this analysis be harmonized with or rely Section 50.2 Definitions to EP for entities other than SMRs and ONTs, what criteria should such entities upon the analysis conducted under 10 In § 50.2, this proposed rule would be required to meet to use a CFR 100.20, Factors to be considered add the definitions for Non-light-water when evaluating sites, for man-related reactor, Non-power production or performance-based, consequence-hazards? What kinds of facilities might utilization facility, and Small modular oriented approach to EP in a future be located contiguous or nearby to reactor.

rulemaking? Please provide a basis for SMRs or ONTs? Should the NRC change your response. Section 50.8 Information Collection the scope of the hazard analysis? If so, If the NRC does not consider a Requirements; OMB Approval how should the scope of the hazard performance-based, consequence- In § 50.8, this proposed rule would analysis change? Please provide the oriented approach to EP for entities basis for your answer. add new § 50.160 to the list of approved other than SMRs and ONTs, should the

• Emergency planning zones: The information collection requirements NRC offer mechanisms (other than the NRC is proposing to require applicants contained in 10 CFR part 50.

existing exemption process) that would and licensees choosing to comply with allow other entities to request NRC proposed § 50.160 to submit the analysis Section 50.10 License Required; approval to use the EP framework used to establish a site-specific plume Limited Work Authorization proposed in this rulemaking? If so, what exposure pathway EPZ size. The In § 50.10, this proposed rule would mechanisms? Please provide a basis for analysis for the proposed EPZ size revise paragraph (a)(1)(vii) to include your response. would be reviewed on a case-specific onsite emergency facilities necessary to

• Performance-based requirements: basis by the NRC to ensure that design- comply with new § 50.160 requirements Under this proposed rule, applicants and site-specific accident scenarios are within the scope of items for which a and licensees choosing to comply with appropriately incorporated and that construction permit or limited work the performance-based approach would reasonable assurance is maintained with authorization is necessary to commence need to demonstrate emergency the proposed EPZ size. Applicants and construction.

response functions required under licensees would need to establish their

§ 50.160(b)(1)(iii) through the use of plume exposure pathway EPZ as the Section 50.33 Contents of drills or exercises and performance area within which public dose is Applications; General Information objectives. Are there additional projected to exceed 10 mSv (1 rem) In § 50.33, this proposed rule would emergency response functions that the TEDE over 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> from the release of revise paragraph (g) to create new NRC should consider for incorporation radioactive materials resulting from a subparagraphs (g)(1) and (2). Paragraph in this proposed rulemaking? Please spectrum of credible accidents for the (g)(1) would contain the original text of provide the basis for your answer. facility. Is the proposed 10 mSv (1 rem) paragraph (g) and would add the

• Drills or exercises: Under proposed criterion appropriate? Are there qualifier except as provided in

§ 50.160(b)(1), applicants and licensees particular factors and technical paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

would need to develop a drill and considerations that need to be included Paragraph (g)(2) would establish an exercise program to demonstrate in an EPZ size analysis? If the analysis EPZ size determination process for compliance with performance-based demonstrates that the EPZ is within the SMR, non-LWR, and NPUF applicants requirements. Would an 8-year exercise facilitys site boundary, would the need complying with § 50.160.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 cycle (as is currently required for large for a dedicated, Federal-mandated LWRs) be appropriate for SMRs or ONTs offsite radiological emergency Section 50.34 Contents of choosing to comply with the preparedness program exist? If the Applications; Technical Information performance-based approach? If not, applicant or licensee provides an In § 50.34, this proposed rule would would an alternative cycle length be adequate description of the existing revise paragraph (a)(10) to require SMR, appropriate? Please provide the basis for Federal, Tribal, State, and local Federal non-LWR, or NPUF construction permit your answer. capabilities to interdict contaminated applicants to describe in their PSARs VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28454 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules the preliminary plans for coping with necessary to meet the requirements of VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification emergencies based on the requirements new § 50.160. As required by the Regulatory in either § 50.160 or appendix E to 10 Paragraph (s)(2)(ii) would be revised Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

CFR part 50. to remove the date April 1, 1981, and to the Commission certifies that this rule, This proposed rule also would revise replace the word reactor with the if adopted, will not have a significant paragraph (b)(6)(v) to require SMR, non- word facility.

This proposed rule would revise economic impact on a substantial LWR, and NPUF applicants for an paragraph (s)(3) by adding clarification number of small entities. This proposed operating license to include in their at the beginning of the sentence that if rule affects only the licensing and FSARs their plans for coping with the standards apply to offsite emergency operation of nuclear power facilities and emergencies based on the requirements response plans, or if the planning NPUFs. The companies, universities, in either § 50.160 or appendix E to 10 activities in new § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(B) and government agencies that own these CFR part 50.

apply, then the NRC would base its facilities do not fall within the scope of Section 50.47 Emergency Plans findings on a review of FEMAs findings the definition of small entities set In § 50.47, this proposed rule would and determinations. forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or make conforming changes to paragraph This proposed rule would also revise the size standards established by the (b) and add new paragraph (f) denoting paragraph (gg)(1) to include the option NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

when the offsite emergency response for SMR, non-LWR, or NPUF applicants VII. Regulatory Analysis plan requirements in paragraph (b) of to use new § 50.160, as applicable.

this section do not apply. The NRC has prepared a draft Section 50.160 Emergency regulatory analysis on this proposed Section 50.54 Conditions of Licenses Preparedness for Small Modular regulation. The analysis examines the Reactors, Non-Light-Water Reactors, costs and benefits of the alternatives In § 50.54, this proposed rule would and Non-Power Production or considered by the NRC. The conclusion revise paragraph (q)(1)(iii) to remove the Utilization Facilities from the analysis is that this proposed reference to appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and § 50.47(b). This proposed rule would add new rule and associated guidance would It would revise paragraph (q)(2) to subpart, Small Modular Reactors, Non- result in net savings to the industry and include new subparagraphs (i) and (ii). Light-Water Reactors, and Non-power the NRC of $5.89 million using a 7-Paragraph (i) would contain the original Production or Utilization Facilities, percent discount rate and $9.71 million text of paragraph (q)(2) and would add and new § 50.160, which would contain using a 3-percent discount rate. The the qualifier except as provided in alternative EP requirements for SMRs, NRC requests public comment on the paragraph (q)(2)(ii) of this section, and non-LWRs, and NPUFs. draft regulatory analysis. The draft paragraph (ii) would allow SMR, non- regulatory analysis is available as Appendix E to Part 50Emergency LWR, and NPUF licensees to follow and indicated in the Availability of Planning and Preparedness for maintain the effectiveness of an Documents section of this document.

Production and Utilization Facilities emergency plan that meets the Comments on the draft regulatory requirements of § 50.160 or appendix E In appendix E to part 50, this analysis may be submitted to the NRC to 10 CFR part 50 and, except for NPUF proposed rule would clarify that the as indicated under the ADDRESSES licensees, § 50.47(b). potential radiological hazards to the caption of this document.

It also would revise paragraph (q)(3) public associated with the operation of NPUFs and fuel facilities involve VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality to include new subparagraphs (i) and (ii). Paragraph (i) would contain the considerations different than those This proposed rule and implementing original text of paragraph (q)(3) and associated with power reactors. guidance would not be subject to the would add the qualifier except as Section 52.1 Definitions NRCs backfitting regulation at § 50.109, provided in paragraph (q)(3)(ii) of this Backfitting, or issue finality In § 52.1, this proposed rule would regulations in 10 CFR part 52. This section and paragraph (ii) would revise the definition of Major feature of proposed rule would contain new specify when an SMR, non-LWR, or the emergency plans to include new NPUF licensee choosing to comply with alternative requirements for SMR and

§ 50.160, as applicable. ONT applicants and licensees. Because the performance-based EP regulations could make changes to its emergency Section 52.17 Contents of these alternative requirements would plan without prior NRC approval. Applications; Technical Information not be imposed upon applicants and Paragraph (q)(4) and (5) would be In § 52.17, this proposed rule would licensees and would not prohibit revised to remove the date February 21, revise paragraph (b)(2) to include new applicants and licensees from following 2012, and paragraph (q)(4) would be § 50.160, as applicable. existing requirements, the proposed further revised to specify that licensees requirements would not constitute that choose to comply with the new Section 52.18 Standards for Review of backfitting or a violation of issue requirements of § 50.160, when making Applications finality.

an emergency plan change that reduces This proposed rule would revise As described in section XV, plan effectiveness, would need to § 52.18 to include new § 50.160, as Availability of Guidance, in this specify the basis for concluding how applicable. document, the NRC is issuing a draft their revised emergency plans continue regulatory guide (DG) that, if finalized, to meet the requirements of that section. Section 52.79 Contents of would provide guidance on the methods jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 This proposed rule would add new Applications; Technical Information in acceptable to the NRC for complying paragraph (q)(7) that would contain the Final Safety Analysis Report with aspects of this proposed rule.

details for submitting license In § 52.79, this proposed rule would Issuance of the DG in final form would amendment requests for SMR, non- revise paragraph (a)(21) to require not constitute backfitting under § 50.109 LWR, or NPUF licensees implementing applicants for SMRs or non-LWRs to and would not otherwise violate issue emergency preparedness programs with comply with either § 50.160 or § 50.47 finality under 10 CFR part 52. As the associated plan modifications and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. discussed in the Implementation VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28455 section of the DG, the NRC has no licensing of non-LWRs, including the as well as the Presidential current intention to impose the DG on status of the proposed rule; and (5) an Memorandum, Plain Language in holders of an operating license or COL. Advisory Committee on Reactor Government Writing, published June Furthermore, in general, the Safeguards Subcommittee meeting held 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC backfitting provisions under 10 CFR on August 22, 2018 to discuss the requests comment on this document part 50 and the issue finality provisions proposed rule. with respect to the clarity and under 10 CFR part 52 do not apply to Another opportunity for public effectiveness of the language used.

current or future applicants because comment is provided to the public at neither the backfitting nor issue finality XI. Environmental Assessment and this proposed rule stage. The NRC will provisions were intended to apply to Proposed Finding of No Significant be issuing the draft implementing every NRC action that substantially Impact guidance also for comment, along with changes the expectations of current and this proposed rule to support more The Commission has determined future applicants. Applicants have no informed external stakeholder feedback. under the National Environmental reasonable expectation that future Further, the NRC will continue to hold Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the requirements will not change (Early public meetings throughout the NRCs regulations in subpart A of 10 Site Permits; Standard Design rulemaking process.Section XV, CFR part 51, that this proposed rule, if Certifications; and Combined Licenses Availability of Guidance, of this adopted, would not be a major Federal for Nuclear Power Plants; Final Rule, document describes how the public can action significantly affecting the quality 54 FR 15372, at 15385-15386; April 18, access the draft implementing guidance of the human environment, and an 1989). for which the NRC seeks external environmental impact statement is not The exceptions to this general stakeholder feedback. required. The following sets forth the principle include a 10 CFR part 50 In addition to the questions on the basis of this determination. This power reactor operating license implementation of this proposed rule majority of the provisions in the applicant that references an NRC-issued presented in the Specific Requests for proposed rule are administrative or construction permit, limited work Comments section of this document, procedural in nature and either would authorization, or design certification the NRC is requesting CER feedback on not affect the physical environment at rule with issue finality, or a 10 CFR part the following questions: all or would have no noticeable effects.

52 applicant that references a 10 CFR 1. In light of any current or projected Further, the NRC has evaluated part 52 license (e.g., an ESP), an NRC CER challenges, does this proposed proposed requirements of interest to regulatory approval (e.g., a design rules effective date provide sufficient stakeholders based on interactions certification rule), or both, with time to implement the new alternative described in section 6, Environmental specified issue finality provisions. The proposed requirements, including Impacts of the Proposed Action, of this NRC does not currently intend to changes to programs, procedures, and environmental assessment that have the impose the positions represented in the facilities? potential to affect the human DG in a manner that would constitute 2. If CER challenges currently exist or environment, including the scalable backfitting or would be inconsistent are expected, what should be done to approach for determining the size of the with any issue finality provision of 10 address them? For example, if more plume exposure pathway EPZ under CFR part 52. If, in the future, the NRC time is required for implementation of proposed § 50.33(g) and the ingestion seeks to impose positions stated in the the new alternative requirements, what response planning requirements under DG in a manner that would constitute period of time is sufficient? § 50.160(b)(4), and determined that this backfitting or be inconsistent with an 3. Do other (NRC or other agency) proposed rule would not have a issue finality provision, the NRC would regulatory actions (e.g., orders, generic significant environmental impact for the need to make the showing as set forth communications, license amendment following reasons. Under the existing EP in § 50.109 or address the regulatory requests, inspection findings of a requirements and these proposed criteria set forth in the applicable issue generic nature) influence the alternative EP requirements, the dose finality provision, as applicable, that implementation of this proposed rules criteria under which predetermined would allow the NRC to impose the requirements? protective actions would be taken (e.g.,

position. 4. Are there unintended evacuation, sheltering) would be similar consequences? Does this proposed rule under both rules, and therefore, the dose IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation create conditions that would be contrary consequence to the public would be The NRC is following its CER process to this proposed rules purpose and similar. The proposed ingestion by engaging with external stakeholders objectives? If so, what are the response planning requirements under throughout this proposed rule and unintended consequences, and how proposed § 50.160(b)(4), while not related regulatory activities. Public should they be addressed? requiring SMR and ONT applicants and involvement has included: (1) A public 5. Please comment on the NRCs cost licensees to establish an IPZ, would meeting held on August 22, 2016, to and benefit estimates in the draft provide the same capabilities available request feedback from interested regulatory analysis that supports this to identify and interdict contaminated stakeholders on a potential proposed rule. The draft regulatory food and water in the event of a performance-based approach for EP for analysis is available as indicated under radiological emergency as required SMRs and ONTs; (2) the publication of the Availability of Documents section under existing EP regulations. The the draft regulatory basis for public of this document. environmental effects of the proposed comment (82 FR 17768) on March 15, ingestion response planning jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 2017; (3) a public meeting held on May X. Plain Writing requirements are similar to that of the 10, 2017, to facilitate public comments The Plain Writing Act of 2010 existing EP requirements. For these on the development of the final (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal reasons, the NRC concludes that the regulatory basis; (4) a public meeting agencies to write documents in a clear, proposed EPZ requirement under held on June 14, 2018 to discuss concise, and well-organized manner. § 50.33(g) and ingestion response initiatives within the industry and NRC The NRC has written this document to planning requirement under related to the development and be consistent with the Plain Writing Act § 50.160(b)(4) would not have a VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28456 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules significant impact on the physical records under the current and proposed 2. Is the estimate of the burden of the environment. Therefore, this rulemaking rule. proposed information collection does not warrant preparation of an An estimate of the total number of accurate?

environmental impact statement. hours needed annually to comply with 3. Is there a way to enhance the Accordingly, the NRC has determined the information collection requirement quality, utility, and clarity of the that a Finding of No Significant Impact or request: Part 50: reduction of 2,407 information to be collected?

is appropriate. hours (1,333 reporting + 1,074 4. How can the burden of the Public stakeholders should note, recordkeeping). Part 52: reduction of proposed information collection on however, that comments on any aspect 740 reporting hours. respondents be minimized, including of this environmental assessment may Abstract: The proposed rule would the use of automated collection be submitted to the NRC as indicated provide SMR, non-LWR, and NPUF techniques or other forms of information under the ADDRESSES caption. The applicants or licensees that are technology?

environmental assessment is available regulated by 10 CFR part 50 or 10 CFR A copy of the OMB clearance package as indicated under the Availability of part 52, the alternative to submit for is available in ADAMS under Accession Documents section of this document. NRC approval a performance-based EP No. ML18134A086. You may obtain The NRC has sent a copy of the program to include a scalable EPZ and information and comment submissions environmental assessment and this licensee-defined performance objectives related to the OMB clearance package by proposed rule to each of the FEMA, and metrics data. If the EP program is searching on https://

EPA, Tribal Representatives, and State approved by the NRC, the proposed rule www.regulations.gov under Docket ID Liaison Officers, and has requested would require the applicants or NRC-2015-0225.

comment. licensees to develop and maintain at the You may submit comments on any beginning of each calendar quarter a list aspect of these proposed information XII. Paperwork Reduction Act of performance objectives for that collection(s), including suggestions for This proposed rule contains new and calendar quarter. Each licensee would reducing the burden and on the above amended collections of information also maintain records showing the issues, by the following methods:

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act implemented performance objectives

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This and associated metrics during each https://www.regulations.gov and search proposed rule has been submitted to the calendar quarter for the previous eight for Docket ID NRC-2015-0225.

Office of Management and Budget calendar quarters. The reports and

• Mail comments to: Information (OMB) for review and approval of the recordkeeping requirements allow the Services Branch: T6-A10M, U.S.

information collections. NRC to evaluate the adequacy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, proposed EP program for approval and Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Type of submission, new or revision:

to assess the ongoing adequacy once email to Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov.

Revision.

implemented. The recordkeeping

• Submit to OMB Directly: Written The title of the information collection:

requirements allow the NRC to comments and recommendations for the 10 CFR parts 50 and 52, Emergency determine whether to take actions, such proposed information collection should Preparedness for Small Modular as to conduct inspections or to alert be sent within 60 days of publication of Reactors and Other New Technologies: other licensees to prevent similar events this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/

Proposed Rule that may have generic implications. The do/PRAMain. You may find this The form number if applicable: Not information is also used to update particular information collection by Applicable. information in the NRC Emergency selecting Currently Under Review How often the collection is required or Operations Center used in support of an Open for Public Comments or by using requested: Emergency plans are NRC response to an actual emergency, the search function. Comments on the submitted once at time of application. drill, or exercise. information collections will be publicly Once an EP program is implemented, EP The proposed rule would allow available in ADAMS and on records are updated quarterly and applicants and licensees to reduce their Reginfo.gov.

reports are submitted every eight years emergency plan information collection Submit comments by July 27, 2020.

for drills and exercises. Records of the requirements compared to the current Comments received after this date will approved EP program, and any changes, framework based on the potential for be considered if it is practical to do so, are kept for the life of the license. smaller EPZs and the reduction in but the NRC is able to ensure Quarterly records of the EP performance license amendments and exemptions. consideration only for comments objectives and metrics are kept for eight The submission of emergency plans to received on or before this date.

quarters. the NRC is required in order to allow Who will be required or asked to the NRC to determine that the Public Protection Notification respond: SMR, non-LWR, and NPUF emergency plans and EP continue to The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, applicants and licensees. provide reasonable assurance that and a person is not required to respond An estimate of the number of annual adequate protective measures can and to, a collection of information unless the responses: Part 50: decrease of 1 will be taken in the event of a document requesting or requiring the reporting response (the current number radiological emergency. collection displays a currently valid of recordkeepers remains the same does The NRC is seeking public comment OMB control number.

not change under the proposed rule). on the potential impact of the Part 52: the number of reporting information collection(s) contained in XIII. Criminal Penalties jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 responses remains the same this proposed rule and on the following For the purposes of Section 223 of the (recordkeepers are captured under part issues: AEA, the NRC is issuing this proposed 50). 1. Is the proposed information rule that would amend or create §§ 50.2, The estimated number of annual collection necessary for the proper 50.8, 50.10, 50.33, 50.34, 50.47, 50.54, respondents: Reporting: Part 50 = one performance of the functions of the 50.160, 52.1, 52.17, 52.18, 52.79, and respondent; Part 52 = one respondent. NRC, including whether the information appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 under one Three recordkeepers will maintain will have practical utility? or more of Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28457 of the AEA. Willful violations of the XV. Availability of Guidance You may submit comments on this rule would be subject to criminal The NRC is issuing for comment new draft regulatory guidance by the enforcement. Criminal penalties as they draft guidance, DG-1350, Performance- methods provided in the ADDRESSES apply to regulations in 10 CFR parts 50 Based Emergency Preparedness for section of this document.

and 52 are discussed in §§ 50.111 and Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light- XVI. Public Meeting 52.303. Water Reactors, and Non-power Production or Utilization Facilities, The NRC will conduct a public XIV. Voluntary Consensus Standards that will support implementation of the meeting to explain the changes in this The National Technology Transfer requirements in this proposed rule. The proposed rule and to answer questions and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. guidance is available in ADAMS under from the attendees to facilitate the 104-113, requires that Federal agencies Accession No. ML18082A044. You may development of public comments.

use technical standards that are obtain information and comment The NRC will publish a notice of the submissions related to the draft developed or adopted by voluntary location, time, and agenda of the guidance by searching on https://

consensus standards bodies unless the meeting on http://www.regulations.gov www.regulations.gov under Docket ID use of such a standard is inconsistent and on the NRCs public meeting NRC-2015-0225.

with applicable law or otherwise The guidance document is intended website within at least 10 calendar days impractical. The NRC did not endorse for use by applicants, licensees, and before the meeting. Stakeholders should any consensus standards for use in this NRC staff, and describes an approach monitor the NRCs public meeting proposed rule. In this proposed rule, the and method acceptable for website for information about the public NRC will revise regulations associated implementing the requirements of the meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-with emergency preparedness in 10 CFR regulations. As a guidance document, involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.

parts 50 and 52. This action does not DG-1350 does not establish additional XVII. Availability of Documents constitute the establishment of a requirements, and applicants and standard that contains generally licensees are able to propose alternative The documents identified in the applicable requirements. ways for demonstrating compliance following table are available to with the requirements in proposed interested persons through one or more

§ 50.160. of the following methods, as indicated.

Document ADAMS Accession No./web link/Federal Register citation Draft Regulatory Analysis, Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors ML18134A077.

and Other New Technologies Proposed RuleDraft Regulatory Analysis.

Draft Environmental Assessment, Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular ML18134A079.

Reactors and Other New Technologies.

Draft Information Collection Clearance Package ...................................................... ML18184A308.

ML18184A309.

Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1350, Performance-Based Emergency Prepared- ML18082A044.

ness for Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light-Water Reactors, and Non-power Production or Utilization Facilities.

NUREG-0396, Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Govern- ML051390356.

ment Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light-water Nu-clear Power Plans, December 1978.

NUREG-0849, Standard Review Plan for the Review and Evaluation of Emer- ML062190191.

gency Plans for Research and Test Reactors, October 1983.

NUREG-1537, Part 1, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for ML042430055.

the Licensing of Non-power Reactors, Format and Content, February 1996.

NUREG-1537, Part 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for ML042430048.

the Licensing of Non-power Reactors, Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria, February 1996.

Interim Staff Guidance for NUREG-1537, Final Interim Staff Guidance Aug- ML12156A069.

menting NUREG-1537, Part 1, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Appli-cations for the Licensing of Non-power Reactors, Format and Content for Li-censing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogenous Reac-tors, October 12, 2012.

Final Interim Guidance for NUREG-1537, Final Interim Staff Guidance Aug- ML12156A075.

menting NUREG-1537, Part 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Appli-cations for the Licensing of Non-power Reactors, Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aque-ous Homogenous Reactors, October 17, 2012.

NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application ML101390110.

for a Fuel Cycle Facility, Revision 1, May 1, 2010.

NUREG-1226, Development and Utilization of the NRC Policy Statement on the ML13253A431.

Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, June 1988.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Criteria for Preparation and Evalua- ML040420012.

tion of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, November 1980.

SECY-93-092, Issues Pertaining to the Advanced Reactor (RISM, MHTGR, and ML040210725.

PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements, April 8, 1993.

SECY-97-020, Results of Evaluation of Emergency Planning for Evolutionary ML992920024.

and Advanced Reactors, January 27, 1997.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules Document ADAMS Accession No./web link/Federal Register citation SECY-04-0236, Southern Nuclear Operation Companys Proposal to Establish ML042590576.

a Common Emergency Operating Facility at its Corporate Headquarters, De-cember 23, 2004.

SECY-06-0200, Results of the Review of Emergency Preparedness Regula- ML061910707.

tions and Guidance, September 20, 2006.

SECY-10-0034, Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small ML093290268.

Modular Reactor Designs, March 28, 2010.

SECY-11-0152, Development of an Emergency Planning and Preparedness ML112570439.

Framework for Small Module Reactors, October 28, 2011.

SECY-14-0066, Request by Dominion Energy Kewaunee Inc., for Exemptions ML14072A257.

from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements, June 27, 2014.

SECY-14-0118, Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from ML14219A444.

Certain Emergency Planning Requirements, October 29, 2014.

SECY-14-0038, Performance-Based Framework for Nuclear Power Plant Emer- ML13238A018.

gency Preparedness Oversight, April 4, 2014.

SECY-15-0077, Options for Emergency Preparedness for Small Module Reac- ML15037A176.

tors and Other New Technologies, May 29, 2015.

SECY-16-0069, Rulemaking Plan on Emergency Preparedness for Small Mod- ML16020A388.

ule Reactors and Other New Technologies, May 31, 2016.

SRM-SECY-93-092, Staff RequirementsSECY-93-092Issues Pertaining to ML003760774.

the Advanced Reactor (PRISM, MHTGR, and PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements, July 30, 1993.

SRM-SECY-04-0236, Staff RequirementsSECY-04-0236Southern Nuclear ML050550131.

Operating Companys Proposal to Establish a Common Emergency Operating Facility at its Corporate Headquarters, February 23, 2005.

SRM-SECY-06-0200, Staff RequirementsResults of the Review of Emer- ML070080411.

gency Preparedness Regulations and Guidance, January 8, 2007.

SRM-SECY-14-0038, Staff RequirementsSECY-14-0038Performance- ML14259A589.

Based Framework for Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Preparedness Over-sight, September 16, 2014.

SRM-SECY-15-0077, Staff RequirementsSECY-15-0077Options for ML15216A492.

Emergency Preparedness for Small Module Reactors and Other New Tech-nologies, August 4, 2015.

SRM-SECY-16-0069, Staff RequirementsRulemaking Plan on Emergency ML16174A166.

Preparedness for Small Module Reactors and Other New Technologies, June 22, 2016.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Homeland Security/ ML15333A371.

Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regarding Radiological Emergency Response, Planning, and Preparedness, December 7, 2015.

Emergency Planning and Preparedness, Final Rule, July 13, 1982 ..................... 47 FR 30232.

NRC Vision and Strategy: Safely Achieving Effective and Efficient Non-Light- ML16356A670.

Water Reactor Mission Readiness, December 2016.

Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations, Final Rule, November 76 FR 72559.

23, 2011.

Regulatory Basis for Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning 82 FR 55954.

to Decommissioning Rulemaking, November 27, 2017.

SECY-18-0055, Proposed Rule: Regulatory Improvements for Production and ML18012A019.

Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning, May 22, 2018.

Regulatory Guide (RG) 2.6, Emergency Planning for Research Reactors, Janu- ML12184A008.

ary 1979.

RG 2.6, Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors and Other Non- ML17263A472.

power Production and Utilization Facilities, September 2017.

Specific Exemptions; Clarification of Standards, December 12, 1985 .................. 50 FR 50764.

Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, Statement of Policy, July 8, 51 FR 24643.

1986.

Policy Statement on Regulation of Advanced Reactors, October 14, 2008 ......... 73 FR 60612.

EP for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, Draft Regulatory 82 FR 17768.

Basis, April 13, 2017.

EP for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, Regulatory Basis, 82 FR 52862.

November 15, 2017.

Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular Reactors, Proposed Rule, No- 80 FR 68268.

vember 4, 2015.

Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular Reactors, Final Rule, May 24, 81 FR 32617.

2016.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 NEI White Paper, White Paper: Proposed Methodology and Criteria Establishing ML13364A345.

the Technical Basis for Small Modular Reactor Emergency Planning Zone, 2013.

NEI White Paper Proposed Emergency Preparedness Regulations and Guid- ML15194A276.

ance for Small Modular Reactors Facilities, July 2015.

Summary of September 1-2, 2015, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Depart- ML15265A165.

ment of Energy Co-Hosted Workshop on Advanced Non-Light-Water Reac-tors, October 15, 2015.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28459 Document ADAMS Accession No./web link/Federal Register citation Summary of June 7-8, 2015, Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory ML16188A226.

Commission Co-Hosted Workshop on Advanced Non-Light-Water Reactors, July 7, 2015.

EPA-520/1-75-001, Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?

for Nuclear Incidents, September, 1975. Dockey=9101AK8V.PDF.

EPA-400-R-92-001, Manual of Protection Action Guides and Protective Actions https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/docu-for Nuclear Incidents, May 1992. ments/pags.pdf.

EPA-400/R-17/001, PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guid- https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/docu-ance for Radiological Incidents, January 2017. ments/epa_pag_manual_final_revisions_01-11-2017_

cover_disclaimer_8.pdf.

NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision ML13261A116.

7, August 13, 2013.

FEMA-NC MOU re: Radiological Emergency Response, Planning, and Prepared- ML15344A371.

ness, dated December 7, 2015.

Generalized Dose Assessment Methodology for Informing Emergency Planning ML18064A317.

Zone Size Determinations, June 2018.

Required Analyses for Informing Emergency Planning Zone Size Determina- ML18114A176.

tions, June 2018.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, Management of Domestic Inci- https://www.dhs.gov/publication/homeland-security-presi-dents, February 28, 2003. dential-directive-5.

Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-8, National Preparedness, March 30, 2011 .. https://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness.

Nuclear Innovation Alliance Enabling Nuclear Innovation: Strategies for Ad- https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5b05b3_

vanced Reactor Licensing, June 7, 2016. 71d4011545234838aa27005ab7d757f1.pdf.

American National Standards Institute/American Society Standard (ANSI/ANS) http://www.ans.org/store/item-240305/.

15.162015. Emergency Planning for Research Reactors, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, February 2015.

Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for 54 FR 15372.

Nuclear Power Plants, Final Rule, April 18, 1989.

Summary of August 22, 2016, Public Meeting to Discuss a Performance-Based ML16257A510.

Approach to Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, September 15, 2016.

Summary of May 10, 2017, Public Meeting on the Draft Regulatory Basis for the ML17139C860.

Rulemaking for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, May 24, 2017.

NUREG/CR-7248, Capabilities and Practices of Offsite Response Organizations ML18170A043.

for Protective Actions in the Intermediate Phase of a Radiological Emergency, June 2018.

10 CFR Parts 50 and 70, Emergency Planning; Final Rule, August 19, 1980 ..... 45 FR 55402.

SECY-19-0062, Final Rule: Non-power Production or Utilization Facility License ML18031A000.

Renewal, June 17, 2019.

Throughout the development of this power plants and reactors, Penalties, PART 50DOMESTIC LICENSING OF proposed rule, the NRC may post Radiation protection, Reactor siting PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION documents related to this rule, criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping FACILITIES including public comments, on the requirements, Whistleblowing.

Federal rulemaking website at https:// 1. The authority citation for part 50 www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 10 CFR Part 52 continues to read as follows:

NRC-2015-0225. The Federal Administrative practice and Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, rulemaking website allows you to procedure, Antitrust, Combined license, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, receive alerts when changes or additions 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, Early site permit, Emergency planning, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, occur in a docket folder. To subscribe:

Fees, Incorporation by reference, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-Inspection, Issue finality, Limited work 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2015-0225); (2) click the Sign up for 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy authorization, Nuclear power plants and Email Alerts link; and (3) enter your Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, email address and select how frequently reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851);

you would like to receive emails (daily, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 weekly, or monthly). Redress of site, Penalties, Reporting and (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental recordkeeping requirements, Standard Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C.

List of Subjects design, Standard design certification. 3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L.96-295, 94 Stat.

For the reasons set out in the 783.

10 CFR Part 50 preamble and under the authority of the 2. In § 50.2, add in alphabetical order jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Administrative practice and Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the definitions for Non-light-water procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, reactor, Non-power production or Classified information, Criminal as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, utilization facility, and Small penalties, Education, Emergency the NRC is proposing to adopt the modular reactor to read as follows:

planning, Fire prevention, Fire following amendments to 10 CFR parts protection, Incorporation by reference, § 50.2 Definitions.

50 and 52:

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear * * * *

• VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28460 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules Non-light-water reactor means a miles (80 km) in radius. The exact size (B) The exact configuration of the nuclear power reactor using a coolant and configuration of the EPZs plume exposure pathway EPZ other than light water. surrounding a particular nuclear power surrounding the facility shall be Non-power production or utilization reactor shall be determined in relation determined in relation to the local facility means a production or to the local emergency response needs emergency response needs and utilization facility, licensed under and capabilities as they are affected by capabilities as they are affected by such

§ 50.21(a) and (c), or § 50.22, as such conditions as demography, conditions as demography, topography, applicable, that is not a nuclear power topography, land characteristics, access land characteristics, access routes, and reactor or a production facility as routes, and jurisdictional boundaries. jurisdictional boundaries.

defined under paragraphs (1) and (2) of The size of the EPZs also may be (ii) If the application is for an early the definition of Production facility in determined on a case-by-case basis for site permit that, under § 52.17(b)(2)(i) of this section. gas-cooled reactors and for reactors with this chapter, proposes major features of

• * * *

• an authorized power level less than 250 the emergency plans and describes the Small modular reactor means a power MW thermal. The plans for the ingestion EPZ, and if the EPZ extends beyond the reactor, licensed under § 50.21 or pathway shall focus on such actions as site boundary, then the exact

§ 50.22 to produce heat energy up to are appropriate to protect the food configuration of the plume exposure 1,000 megawatts-thermal, which may be ingestion pathway. pathway EPZ surrounding the facility of modular design as defined in § 52.1 * * * *

• shall be determined in relation to the of this chapter. 4 Emergency planning zones (EPZs) are local emergency response needs and

• * * *

• discussed in NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1 capabilities as they are affected by such 016, Planning Basis for the Development of conditions as demography, topography,

§ 50.8 [Amended] State and Local Government Radiological land characteristics, access routes, and

3. In § 50.8(b), add 50.160 after Emergency Response Plans in Support of jurisdictional boundaries.

50.155. Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants, December 1978. * * * * *

4. In § 50.10, revise paragraph

• * * *

• 6. In § 50.34, revise paragraphs (a)(10)

(a)(1)(vii) to read as follows: and (b)(6)(v) to read as follows:

If the State and local emergency response 5

§ 50.10 License required; limited work plans have been previously provided to the

§ 50.34 Contents of applications; technical authorization. NRC for inclusion in the facility docket, the information.

(a) * *

• applicant need only provide the appropriate (1) * *

• reference to meet this requirement. (a) * * *

(vii) Onsite emergency facilities * * * * * (10) A discussion of the applicants necessary to comply with either preliminary plans for coping with (2) Small modular reactor, non-light-

§ 50.160 or § 50.47 and appendix E to emergencies based on:

water reactor, or non-power production this part, as applicable. or utilization facility applicants (i) Except as provided in paragraph

• * * *

• complying with § 50.160 who apply for (a)(10)(ii) of this section, the

5. In § 50.33, revise paragraph (g) to a construction permit or an operating requirements in appendix E to this part.

read as follows: license under this part, or small (ii) For a small modular reactor, a modular reactor or non-light-water non-light-water reactor, or non-power

§ 50.33 Contents of applications; general production or utilization facility information. reactor applicants complying with

§ 50.160 who apply for a combined construction permit applicant, the

• * * *

• license or an early site permit under requirements in either § 50.160 or (g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph appendix E to this part.

part 52 of this chapter, must submit as (g)(2) of this section, if the application * * * *

• part of the application the analysis used is for an operating license or combined to establish the size of the plume (b) * *

• license for a nuclear power reactor, or exposure pathway EPZ. The plume (6) * *

• if the application is for an early site exposure pathway EPZ is determined as (v) Plans for coping with emergencies permit and contains plans for coping the area within which public dose, as based on:

with emergencies under § 52.17(b)(2)(ii) defined in § 20.1003 of this chapter, is (A) Except as provided in paragraph of this chapter, the applicant shall projected to exceed 10 mSv [1 rem] total (b)(6)(v)(B) of this section, the submit radiological emergency response effective dose equivalent over 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> requirements in appendix E to this part.

plans of State and local governmental from the release of radioactive materials, (B) For a small modular reactor, a entities in the United States that are resulting from a spectrum of credible non-light-water reactor, or a non-power wholly or partially within the plume accidents for the facility. production or utilization facility exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ),4 as well as the plans of State (i) If the application is for an operating license applicant, the governments wholly or partially within operating license or combined license or requirements in either § 50.160 or the ingestion pathway EPZ.5 If the if the application is for an early site appendix E to this part.

application is for an early site permit permit and contains plans for coping * * * *

• that, under 10 CFR 52.17(b)(2)(i), with emergencies under § 52.17(b)(2)(ii) 7. In § 50.47, revise paragraph (b) proposes major features of the of this chapter, and if the plume introductory text and add paragraph (f).

emergency plans describing the EPZs, exposure pathway EPZ extends beyond The revision and addition read as jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 then the descriptions of the EPZs must the site boundary: follows:

meet the requirements of this paragraph. (A) The applicant shall submit Generally, the plume exposure pathway radiological emergency response plans § 50.47 Emergency plans.

EPZ for nuclear power reactors shall of Tribal, State, and local governmental * * * *

• consist of an area about 10 miles (16 entities in the United States that are (b) The onsite and, except as provided km) in radius and the ingestion pathway wholly or partially within the plume in paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section, EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 exposure pathway EPZ. offsite emergency response plans for VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28461 nuclear power reactors must meet the appendix E to this part and, except for reactor or each holder of an operating following standards: a holder of a license under this part for license under this part issued after [Date

• * * *

• a non-power production or utilization 30 Days After Date of Publication of the (f) Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of this facility, the planning standards of Final Rule in the Federal Register] for a section do not apply to offsite § 50.47(b). non-power production or utilization radiological emergency response plans (3)(i) Except as provided in paragraph facility that wishes to transition to if the licensees emergency plan is not (q)(3)(ii) of this section, the licensee § 50.160 shall submit to the required to meet these planning may make changes to its emergency Commission, as specified in § 50.90, a standards or if the plume exposure plan without NRC approval only if the license amendment request for pathway EPZ does not extend beyond licensee performs and retains an implementing an emergency the site boundary. analysis demonstrating that the changes preparedness program with the

8. In § 50.54: do not reduce the effectiveness of the associated plan modification necessary

a. Revise paragraphs (q)(1)(iii) and plan and the plan, as changed, to meet the requirements of § 50.160(b).

(q)(2) through (4); continues to meet the requirements in This submittal must include an

b. In paragraph (q)(5), remove the appendix E to this part and, for nuclear explanation of the schedule and words made after February 21, 2012; power reactor licensees, the planning analyses supporting the implementation

c. Add paragraph (q)(7); standards of § 50.47(b). of the emergency preparedness program.

d. In paragraph (s)(2)(ii), remove the (ii) A non-power production or * * * *

• words after April 1, 1981,, remove the utilization facility, small modular (gg)(1) Notwithstanding 10 CFR word reactor and add in its place the reactor, or non-light-water reactor 52.103, if, following the conduct of the word facility, and add the words or licensee may make changes to its exercise required by either paragraph cease operation after the words shut emergency plan without NRC approval IV.f.2.a of appendix E to this part or down; only if the licensee performs and retains § 50.160(c)(2), as applicable, FEMA

e. In paragraph (s)(3), remove the an analysis demonstrating that the identifies one or more deficiencies in words The NRC and add in their changes do not reduce the effectiveness the state of offsite emergency place the words If the planning of the plan and the plan, as changed, preparedness, the holder of a combined standards for radiological emergency continues to meet the requirements in license under part 52 of this chapter preparedness apply to offsite emergency either § 50.160 or appendix E to this may operate at up to 5 percent of rated response plans, or if the planning part and, except for a non-power thermal power only if the Commission activities in § 50.160(b)(1)(iv)(B) of this production or utilization facility finds that the state of onsite emergency part apply, the NRC; and licensee, the planning standards of preparedness provides reasonable

f. Revise paragraph (gg)(1). § 50.47(b). assurance that adequate protective The addition and revisions read as (4) The changes to a licensees measures can and will be taken in the follows: emergency plan that reduce the event of a radiological emergency. The effectiveness of the plan as defined in NRC will base this finding on its

§ 50.54 Conditions of licenses. paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section may assessment of the applicants onsite

• * * *

• not be implemented without prior emergency plans against the pertinent (q) * *

• approval by the NRC. A licensee standards in either § 50.47 and (1) * *

• desiring to make such a change shall appendix E to this part or § 50.160, as (iii) Emergency planning function submit an application for an applicable. Review of the applicants means a capability or resource necessary amendment to its license. In addition to emergency plans will include the to prepare for and respond to a the filing requirements of §§ 50.90 and following standards with offsite aspects:

radiological emergency. 50.91, the request must include all * * * * *

• * * *

• emergency plan pages affected by that 9. Add undesignated center heading (2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph change and must be accompanied by a Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light-(q)(2)(ii) of this section, a holder of a forwarding letter identifying the change, Water Reactors, and Non-power license under this part, or a combined the reason for the change, and the basis Production or Utilization Facilities: and license under part 52 of this chapter for concluding that the licensees § 50.160 to read as follows:

after the Commission makes the finding emergency plan, as revised, will under § 52.103(g) of this chapter, shall continue to meet the requirements in Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light-follow and maintain the effectiveness of either § 50.160 or, appendix E to this Water Reactors, and Non-Power an emergency plan that meets the part and, for nuclear power reactor Production or Utilization Facilities requirements in appendix E to this part licensees, the planning standards of § 50.160 Emergency preparedness for and, for nuclear power reactor licensees, § 50.47(b). small modular reactors, non-light water-the planning standards of § 50.47(b). (5) The licensee shall retain a record reactors, and non-power production or (ii) A holder of a license under this of each change to the emergency plan utilization facilities.

part for a non-power production or made without prior NRC approval for a (a) Definitions. For the purpose of this utilization facility, a holder of a license period of three years from the date of section:

under this part for a small modular the change and shall submit, as (1) Site boundary means site reactor or a non-light-water reactor, or a specified in § 50.4, a report of each such boundary as defined in § 20.1003 of this holder of a combined license under part change made, including a summary of chapter.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 52 of this chapter after the Commission its analysis, within 30 days after the (2) [Reserved]

makes the finding under § 52.103(g) of change is put in effect. (b) Requirements. The emergency this chapter for a small modular reactor * * * *

• plan shall contain information needed or a non-light-water reactor, shall follow (q)(7) Each holder of an operating to demonstrate compliance with the and maintain the effectiveness of an license under this part or a combined elements set forth in this paragraph. The emergency plan that meets the license under 10 CFR part 52 for a small NRC will not issue an initial operating requirements in either § 50.160 or modular reactor or non-light-water license to a licensee unless a finding is VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28462 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules made by the NRC that there is (1) Radiological conditions. Assess, be completed, and primary and reasonable assurance that adequate monitor, and report radiological secondary methods to complete protective measures can and will be conditions to the response organization notification; taken in the event of a radiological using installed or portable equipment. (3) The protective measures to be emergency. No finding under this (2) Protective equipment. Issue and taken within the EPZ to protect the section is necessary for issuance of a use protective equipment necessary to health and safety of the public in the renewed power reactor operating continue and expand mitigation and event of an emergency, including the license. protective action strategies. procedures by which the protective (1) Performance-based framework. (3) Core or vessel damage. Assess, measures are implemented, maintained, Demonstrate effective response in drills monitor, and report to the response and discontinued; and exercises for emergency and organization the extent and magnitude (4) The site familiarization training for accident conditions. of damage to the core or other vessel any offsite organization that may (i) Maintenance of performance. containing irradiated special nuclear respond to the site in the event of an Maintain in effect preparedness to material, such as fuel or targets, as emergency; respond to emergency and accident applicable. (5) An evacuation time estimate of the conditions and describe in an (4) Releases. Assess, monitor, and areas beyond the site boundary and emergency plan the provisions to be report to the response organization the within the EPZ; employed to maintain preparedness; extent and magnitude of all radiological (6) The offsite facility and any backup (ii) Performance objectives. (A) By the releases, including releases of hazardous facilities to coordinate the onsite beginning of each calendar quarter, chemicals produced from licensed response with the offsite response; develop and maintain a complete list of material. (7) The means of making offsite dose performance objectives for that calendar (G) Reentry. Develop and implement projections and the means of quarter; and reentry plans for accessing the facility communicating the offsite dose (B) Maintain records showing the after emergencies. projections to the offsite response implemented performance objectives (H) Critique and corrective actions. coordinating agencies; Critique emergency response functions (8) The means by which public and associated metrics during each and implement corrective actions after information is provided to the members calendar quarter for the previous eight drills and exercises, and after of the public concerning emergency calendar quarters; emergencies, if they occur. planning information, public alert (iii) Emergency response performance.

(iv) Planning activities. notification system, and any prompt The emergency response team must (A) Maintain the capability to: actions that need to be taken by the have sufficient capability to (1) Prepare and issue public public; demonstrate the following emergency information during emergencies. (9) The general plans and methods to response functions using drills or (2) Implement the NRC-approved allow entry into the EPZ during and exercises: emergency response plan in conjunction after an emergency; (A) Event classification and with the licensees Safeguards (10) The drill and exercise program mitigation. Assess, classify, monitor, Contingency Plan. that tests and implements major and repair facility malfunctions in (3) Establish voice and data portions of planning, preparations, and accordance with the emergency plan to communications with the NRC for the coordinated response by the onsite return the facility to safe conditions. emergencies. response organizations with the offsite (B) Protective actions. Implement and (4) Establish an emergency facility or response organization within the EPZ maintain protective actions for onsite facilities from which effective direction without mandatory public participation; personnel for emergency conditions, can be given and effective control can be and and recommend protective actions to exercised during an emergency, with (11) The methods for maintaining the offsite authorities as conditions warrant. capabilities to support the emergency emergency plan, contacts and (C) Communications. Establish and response functions as described in arrangements, procedures, and maintain effective communications with paragraph (b) of this section. evacuation time estimate up to date, the emergency response organization, (B) For a plume exposure pathway including periodic reviews by the onsite and make notifications to response EPZ that extends beyond the site and offsite organizations.

personnel and organizations who may boundary, the emergency plan must (2) Hazard analysis. Conduct a hazard have responsibilities for responding describe: analysis of any contiguous or nearby during emergencies. (1) The contacts and arrangements facility, such as industrial, military, and (D) Command and control. Establish made and documented with local, State, transportation facilities, and include and maintain effective command and Tribal and Federal governmental any credible hazard into the licensees control for emergencies by using a agencies, as applicable, with emergency preparedness program that supporting organizational structure with responsibilities for coping with would adversely impact the defined roles, responsibilities, and emergencies, including the implementation of emergency plans.

authorities for directing and performing identification of the principal (3) Emergency planning zone.

emergency response functions as coordinating agencies, and the Determine and describe the boundary described in paragraph (b) of this coordinated reviews of changes in and physical characteristics of the EPZ section. offsite and onsite planning and in the emergency plan.

(E) Staffing and operations. Establish preparation; (4) Ingestion response planning.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 staffing for the facility necessary to (2) Offsite organizations responsible Describe or reference in the emergency implement the roles and responsibilities for coping with emergencies and the plan the capabilities that provide in this paragraph. means of notifying, in the event of an actions to protect contaminated food (F) Radiological assessment. Assess emergency, persons assigned to the and water from entering into the radiological conditions in and around emergency organizations, including the ingestion pathway.

the facility during emergencies, means of validating notifications, the (c) Implementation. (1) An applicant including: time period by which notifications must for an operating license issued under VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28463 this part after [Date 30 Days After Date Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, § 52.18 Standards for review of of Publication of the Final Rule in the secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, applications.

Federal Register] must establish, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, Applications filed under this subpart implement, and maintain an emergency will be reviewed according to the 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, preparedness program that meets the 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, applicable standards set out in 10 CFR requirements of paragraph (b) of this 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy part 50 and its appendices and 10 CFR section, as described in the emergency Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, part 100. In addition, the Commission plan and license, and conduct an initial 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); shall prepare an environmental impact exercise to demonstrate this compliance Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 statement during review of the no later than 18 months before the (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C.

application, in accordance with the issuance of an operating license for the applicable provisions of 10 CFR part 51.

facility described in the license 3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L.96-295, 94 Stat.

783. The Commission shall determine, after application. consultation with Federal Emergency (2) A holder of a combined license 12. In § 52.1, revise the definition of Management Agency, as applicable, issued under part 52 of this chapter Major feature of the emergency plans whether the information required of the before the Commission has made the to read as follows: applicant by § 52.17(b)(1) shows that finding under § 52.103(g) of this there is not significant impediment to chapter, must establish, implement, and § 52.1 Definitions.

the development of emergency plans maintain an emergency preparedness * * * *

• that cannot be mitigated or eliminated program that meets the requirements of Major feature of the emergency plans by measures proposed by the applicant, paragraph (b) of this section, as means an aspect of those plans whether any major features of described in the approved emergency necessary to: emergency plans submitted by the plan and license, and conduct an initial (i) Address in whole or part either one applicant under § 52.17(b)(2)(i) are exercise to demonstrate this compliance or more of the 16 standards in 10 CFR acceptable in accordance with either the no later than 18 months before the 50.47(b) or the requirements of 10 CFR applicable standards of § 50.47 of this scheduled date for initial loading of 50.160(b), as applicable; or chapter and the requirements of fuel. appendix E to part 50 of this chapter, or (ii) Describe the emergency planning

10. In appendix E to part 50, revise § 50.160 of this chapter, and whether zones as required in 10 CFR 50.33(g).

paragraph I.3. and footnote 2 to I.3 to any emergency plans submitted by the read as follows: * * * *

• applicant under § 52.17(b)(2)(ii) provide

13. In § 52.17, revise paragraph (b)(2) reasonable assurance that adequate APPENDIX E TO PART 50 to read as follows: protective measures can and will be EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR PRODUCTION § 52.17 Contents of applications; technical taken in the event of a radiological AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES information. emergency.

I. * * * * * * *

• 15. In § 52.79, revise paragraph (a)(21)

3. The potential radiological hazards (b) * *

• to read as follows:

to the public associated with the (2) * * * § 52.79 Contents of applications; technical operation of non-power production or (i) Propose major features of the information in final safety analysis report.

utilization facilities licensed under 10 emergency plans, in accordance with CFR part 50 and fuel facilities licensed (a) * *

• either the pertinent standards of § 50.47 under 10 CFR part 70 involve of this chapter and the requirements of (21) Emergency plans complying with considerations different than those appendix E to part 50 of this chapter, or the requirements of § 50.47 of this associated with nuclear power reactors. § 50.160 of this chapter, as applicable, chapter, and appendix E to part 50 of Consequently, the size of Emergency such as the exact size and configuration this chapter, or for a small modular Planning Zones 1 (EPZs) for facilities of the emergency planning zones, for reactor or a non-light-water reactor other than power reactors and the review and approval by the NRC, in license applicant, the requirements in degree to which compliance with the consultation with the Federal either § 50.160 of this chapter or requirements of this section and Emergency Management Agency appendix E to part 50 of this chapter sections II, III, IV, and V of this (FEMA), as applicable, in the absence of and § 50.47 of this chapter; appendix as necessary will be complete and integrated emergency determined on a case-by-case basis.2 * * * *

• plans; or

• * * *

• Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day (ii) Propose complete and integrated of May, 2020.

2 Regulatory Guide 2.6, Emergency emergency plans for review and Planning for Research and Test Reactors approval by the NRC, in consultation For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

and Other Non-power Production and with FEMA, as applicable in accordance Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Utilization Facilities, may be used as with either the applicable standards of Secretary to the Commission.

guidance for the acceptability of non- § 50.47 of this chapter and the power production or utilization facility Note: The following Appendix will not requirements of appendix E to part 50 emergency response plans. appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

of this chapter, or § 50.160 of this jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

• * * *

• chapter. To the extent approval of Separate Views of Commissioner Baran emergency plans is sought, the PART 52LICENSES, application must contain the For the last 40 years, NRC has CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS information required by § 50.33(g) and required emergency planning zones, or FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (j) of this chapter. EPZs, around nuclear power plants to

11. The authority citation for part 52 * * * *

• assure that prompt and effective actions continues to read as follows: 14. Revise § 52.18 to read as follows: can be taken to protect the public in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28464 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules event of an accident. 1 Every one of the by NRC, and only one SMR design has over the years. In the 1986 Safety Goals 96 operating large light-water reactors in been submitted for the staffs review. Policy Statement, even as the the country has a plume exposure These new designs could potentially be Commission focused on the quantitative pathway EPZ that extends about 10 safer than current large light-water- risk of nuclear reactor accidents, the miles around the site with dedicated reactor designs. But that does not Commission recognized emergency offsite radiological emergency plans and eliminate the need for EPZs and planning as [an] integral part[ ] of the protective actions in place to avoid or dedicated offsite emergency planning to defense-in-depth concept associated reduce radiation dose to the public provide defense-in-depth in case with its accident prevention and during an accident. An ingestion something goes wrong. mitigation philosophy. 9 The exposure pathway EPZ with a radius of Since 1978, when the concept of an Commission stated that emergency 50 miles around each of these sites is EPZ was first developed, the size of an response capabilities are mandated to designed to avoid or reduce dose from EPZ has never been exclusively based provide additional defense-in-depth consuming food and water on the likelihood of an accident protection to the surrounding contaminated by a radiological release. occurring. The joint NRC-EPA task populations. 10 Similarly, when the The EPZs and dedicated radiological force that introduced the EPZ concept agency was working through non-light-emergency plans are meant to provide specifically stated: Emergency water reactor issues in 1993, the NRC multiple layers of protectionor planning is not based upon quantified staff proposed no changes to the defense-in-depthagainst potential probabilities of incidents or existing regulations governing EP for radiological exposure. Other NRC accidents. 3 Its foundational task force non-light-water reactor licensees, requirements are focused on preventing report, referred to as NUREG-0396, explaining that it views the inclusion or mitigating a radioactive release. The explained that [r]adiological of emergency preparedness by advanced emergency planning regulations are emergency planning is not based upon reactor licensees as an essential element there to provide another layer of defense probabilities, but on public perceptions in NRCs defense-in-depth in case a release occurs despite those of the problem and what could be done philosophy. 11 Four years later, the safety requirements. In other words, to protect health and safety. 4 This was staff emphasized the importance of EPZs and radiological emergency not an isolated statement. The task force getting the buy-in of federal, state, and planning are designed to address low- found that EPZ size should be derived local emergency response agencies for probability, high-consequence events. from the characteristics of design basis any emergency response changes The Federal Emergency Management and Class 9 accident consequences. 5 relating to new, potentially safer reactor Agency (FEMA) assesses the adequacy Class 9 accidents were defined as those designs.12 of the offsite emergency plans, and NRC considered to be so low in probability But these considerations are sidelined regulations require licensees to hold as not to require specific additional with the proposed rule. Under the rules offsite emergency preparedness drills at provisions in the design of a reactor EPZ sizing methodology, the each plant at least once every 2 years to facility, including total core melt quantitative dose formula exclusively practice implementing the plans.2 scenarios in which the containment determines the size of the EPZ. It is a Under this proposed rule, emergency catastrophically fails and releases large purely quantitative, risk-based planning for small modular reactors quantities of radioactive materials determination rather than a risk-(SMRs) and non-light-water reactors directly to the atmosphere. 6 Today, we informed decision that accounts for would be flimsy by comparison. Instead refer to these as beyond-design-basis expert judgment, defense-in-depth, and of a 10-mile plume exposure pathway accidents. NRC and EPA understood public confidence. With this proposed EPZ, these reactors would have EPZs that these kinds of extreme accidents rule, no one is exercising any human that encompass only areas where the were unlikely, but they also knew that judgment about how large an EPZ projected dose from credible EPZs should be in place to provide should be. It is simply a mathematical accidents could exceed 1 rem. An EPZ defense-in-depth because the calculation.

extending only to the site boundary is probability of an accident involving a The NRC staff acknowledges in the explicitly permitted under this significant release of radioactive draft proposed rule that emergency methodology. In the case of a site- material, although small, is not zero. 7 planning is supposed to be risk-boundary EPZ, NRC would not require The task force further concluded that informed rather than risk-based and dedicated offsite radiological emergency independent of accident nuclear accidents were unique in planning and FEMA would have no role probability. 13 After all, an existing important ways. The report explained:

in evaluating the adequacy of a sites plants EPZ does not change every time the potential consequences of emergency plans. In addition, the a plant modification reduces the risk of improbable but nevertheless severe proposed rule would eliminate the an accident. A large light-water-reactor power reactor accidents, while requirement for an ingestion exposure licensee does not (and should not) get comparable in some sense to severe pathway EPZ and no longer require a a smaller EPZ because it installs an natural or man-made disasters which specific drill frequency for emergency additional emergency diesel generator would trigger an ultimate protective planning exercises. Overall, this or stores FLEX equipment on site. But measure such as evacuation, do require proposed rule represents a radical some specialized planning 9 51 FR 28044 (1986).

departure from more than 40 years of considerations. 8 10 Id.

radiological emergency planning. NRCs recognition of the important 11 SECY-93-0092, Issues Pertaining to the No new SMR or non-light-water role emergency planning plays in Advanced Reactor (PRISM, MHTGR, and PIUS) and reactor designs have yet been approved jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 providing defense-in-depth endured CANDU 3 Designs and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements at 13.

1 NUREG-0396, Planning Basis for the 12 SECY-97-0020, Results of Evaluation of 3 Id. at I-2.

Development of State and Local Government 4 Id.

Emergency Planning for Evolutionary and Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support Advanced Reactors.

5 Id. at 16.

of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants (1978) at 11. 13 SECY-18-0103, Proposed Rule: Emergency 2 The regulations require a full set of emergency 6 Id. at 26, I-6. Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and 7 Id. at II-1.

preparedness exercises to be conducted at each Other New Technologies, Enclosure 1, Draft plant over an 8-year cycle. 8 Id. at III-1, III-2. Proposed Rule at 30.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules 28465 the proposed rule embodies just that emergency personnel could have new rule to SMRs and [other new sort of exclusively quantitative unfortunate consequences. 19 technologies] with a limit on thermal power.

approach. Instead of risk being one In short, all-hazards planning would The rule could apply to any reactor important factor considered in setting not be as effective as dedicated technology regardless of size. During our radiological emergency planning in an meetings, the staff acknowledged this emergency planning requirements, it point.23 would become the only factor that actual radiological emergency. As a matters. For any SMR or non-light-water result, a site boundary EPZ with all- In fact, the proposed rule explicitly reactor that met the dose criteria for a hazards planning would not provide the seeks comment on whether to apply this site boundary EPZ, there would be no same level of protection for a kind of approach to large light-water dedicated off-site radiological community located near a reactor site as reactors.24 This opens the door to emergency planning. That element of an offsite EPZ with dedicated smaller EPZs and reduced emergency defense-in-depth would be dropped radiological emergency planning. planning for the existing fleet of power completely. FEMA, therefore, believes that the NRC reactors. If the proposed rules formulaic FEMA has expressed major concerns staff conclusion that the proposed approach is adopted, a precedent will be about the NRC staffs approach. It methodology of offsite emergency established for applying a purely risk-disagrees that quantitative dose criteria preparedness maintains the same level based methodology to EPZ sizing.

should completely determine the size of of protection as a ten-mile EPZ is Second, the proposed rule does not an EPZ. Consistent with NUREG-0396, unsupported. 20 account for the possibility of accidents FEMA has expressed its support for a We need to take FEMAs warnings affecting more than one SMR module.

methodology for EPZ sizing that takes seriously. FEMA has a key role in Even though some SMR designs into account such non-technical determining whether the emergency contemplate several reactors at one site, criteria as public confidence.14 planning for a nuclear power plant site the EPZ sizing methodology addresses Moreover, FEMA has consistently is adequate. Under NRCs regulations, a each reactor in isolation. This ignores a raised concerns about a methodology nuclear power plant license cannot be key lesson of the Fukushima accident that allows for a site boundary EPZ for issued unless NRC makes a finding that that severe natural disasters can a commercial nuclear power plant. 15 the major features of the emergency plan simultaneously threaten multiple In the absence of an EPZ and dedicated meet the regulatory requirements. And reactors at a site. Under the draft offsite radiological emergency planning, NRC is supposed to base its finding on proposed rule, a SMR is defined as a emergency responders would be left FEMAs determinations as to whether power reactor that produces less than with all-hazards planning. FEMA does the offsite emergency plans are adequate 1,000 megawatts-thermal. The combined not believe that all-hazards planning and whether there is reasonable heat energy produced by just two SMRs would be adequate in the event of an assurance that they can be of this size could be larger than that of actual nuclear power plant accident. implemented. In fact, under NRCs some existing large light-water reactors According to FEMA, Radiological regulations, in any NRC licensing in the U.S. But, under the proposed

[emergency planning] is not sufficiently proceeding, a FEMA finding will rule, each module could individually addressed within the All Hazards constitute a rebuttable presumption on qualify for a site boundary EPZ without frameworkradiological [emergency questions of adequacy and consideration of the other.

planning] is unique. In a Worst-Case implementation capability. 21 FEMA Third, unlike the existing regulations Scenario, our [offsite response has this prominent role in our licensing for large light-water reactors, the organizations] could be challenged to process because of its well-known proposed rule would not define the effectively protect the health and safety expertise in this area. Yet, under the required frequency of drills and of the public using an ad hoc proposed rule, FEMA would have no exercises for emergency

[emergency planning] construct. 16 role in assessing the adequacy of offsite preparedness.25 As a result, SMR and FEMA explains that [a]dvanced emergency plans and capabilities for non-light-water reactor licensees would planningsuch as provided by an reactors with a site boundary EPZ.22 not be required to conduct a full offsite EPZreduces the complexity of the In addition to the issues identified by emergency preparedness drill every 2 decision-making process during an FEMA, there are several other years. The NRC staff provides no basis incident. 17 And FEMA stress[es] that significant problems with the proposed for this weaker standard.

the proven best way to ensure offsite rule.

First, the logic of the proposed EPZ Finally, the proposed rule would readiness is to develop, exercise, and eliminate the ingestion pathway EPZ for assess [offsite response organization] sizing methodology could be applied to the existing fleet of large light-water SMRs and non-light-water reactors. The radiological capabilities, as is now done NRC staff argues that prior quarantines throughout the offsite EPZ. 18 While a reactors to weaken the current level of protection. As the Advisory Committee of spinach and eggs in response to E.

radiological emergency plan could be Coli and salmonella infections scaled up to address a more severe on Reactor Safeguards noted:

demonstrate[] that a response to accident than what was planned for, No technical basis is stated in the rule or prevent ingestion of contaminated foods FEMA notes that it is unrealistic to the guidance for restricting the use of the and water could be performed in an scale up non-existent plans and that expeditious manner without a 19 Letter from Michael S. Casey, Director, the resulting lack of necessary predetermined planning zone. 26 No Technological Hazards Division, FEMA to NRC equipment, and shortage of trained (Aug. 24, 2019) (ML19240A938). FEMA evaluation of this change is 20 Id. provided. Nor is there any discussion of jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 14 Letter from Michael S. Casey, Director, Technological Hazards Division, FEMA to NRC 21 10 CFR 50.47.

the effectiveness of ad hoc responses to 22 See Draft Proposed Rule at 47 (for SMRs and (Aug. 24, 2019) (ML19240A938). previous radiological releases.

15 Id.

[other new technologies] within the scope of this proposed rule, FEMA findings and determinations 23 Letter from Michael Corradini, Chairman, 16 Letter from Michael S. Casey, Director, regarding reasonable assurance . . . would only be Technological Hazards Division, FEMA to NRC needed for a facility where the plume exposure ACRS to NRC (Oct. 19, 2018) (ML18291B248).

(July 8, 2019) (ML19189A318). pathway EPZ extends beyond the site boundary 24 Draft Proposed Rule at 60.

17 Id. 25 Draft Proposed Rule at 39.

requiring dedicated offsite radiological EP plans for 18 Id. the facility.) 26 Draft Proposed Rule at 55.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3

28466 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules Moreover, if the staffs unbounded could be safer than large light-water dose standard at that distance. Reactors rationale were adopted, it could reactors while ensuring that there will of this size, essentially micro-reactors, ultimately lead to ingestion pathway be dedicated offsite radiological would present accident consequences EPZs being dropped for the existing emergency planning to provide defense- comparable to existing research and test fleet of large light-water reactors. in-depth in the unlikely event of a reactors, which are not subject to offsite For these reasons, I do not support severe accident. To account for future emergency planning requirements.27 finalizing the proposed rule in its potential technological advances, an Large light-water reactors, as well as current form. NRC needs a rule that alternate EPZ smaller than 2 miles any SMRs or non-light-water reactors provides regulatory certainty for should be available if NRC, FEMA, and that do not meet the dose standard for potential applicants and recognizes that the host state all agree that the alternate a 2-mile EPZ, would continue to have a SMRs and non-light-water reactors will EPZ would provide for an effective and 10-mile EPZ.

be different than traditional, large light- adequate response in the event of a water reactors. It makes sense to have a severe radiological emergency. The rule In my view, this approach strikes the graded approach that accounts for should include an EPZ sizing right balance. It recognizes the potential potential safety improvements in new methodology that accounts for the for improved designs with lower risks, designs. But the rule should not be possibility of accidents affecting more while maintaining defense-in-depth to purely risk-based, relying entirely on than one SMR module, provide for an protect the public. It builds on 40 years the results of a dose formula. Instead, appropriately-sized ingestion pathway of experience with emergency planning NRC should issue a rule to establish the EPZ, and maintain the existing rather than discarding it. During the following emergency planning requirements to conduct an offsite comment period, a broad range of requirements for three categories of emergency preparedness drill every 2 stakeholders will have an opportunity to nuclear power plants. years and the full suite of emergency offer their views on how this approach SMRs and non-light-water reactors preparedness exercises over an 8-year can be further refined in the rule.

with a thermal output of more than 20 cycle. [FR Doc. 2020-09666 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]

megawatts would be eligible for a 2-mile SMRs and non-light-water reactors BILLING CODE 7590-01-P EPZ, as long as they meet the dose with a thermal output of 20 megawatts standard at that distance. A 2-mile EPZ or less would be eligible for a site 27 The largest currently operating test reactor has recognizes that these new technologies boundary EPZ, as long as they meet the a power level of 20 megawatts thermal.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 VerDate Sep<11>2014 00:42 May 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12MYP3.SGM 12MYP3