ML20245A295

Requests FEMA Review of Encl Final Rule Revising Exercise Timing Prior to Licensing.Only Last Two Sentences of Proposed Rule Revised for Clarity.Response Requested by 870327

ML20245A295
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/17/1987
From:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency
Shared Package
ML20234F581	List: IA-87-823, Requests FEMA Review of Encl Final Rule Revising Exercise Timing Prior to Licensing.Only Last Two Sentences of Proposed Rule Revised for Clarity.Response Requested by 870327 ML20234F579 ML20236U623 ML20245A295
References
FOIA-87-823 NUDOCS 8703190467
Download: ML20245A295 (15)

Text

_ _ .

. 1 UNITED STATES

, , ,, , e *-} NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~~'"~"""""

p%,) March 17, 1987

%, .'. ". '. '. /

s MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural 'and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM: Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR FEMA REVIEW OF FINAL RULE REVISING EXERCISE TIMING PRIOR TO LICENSING As discussed at the March 9,1987 Steering Committee meeting, we request FEMA concurrence regarding the subject attached final rule. This is virtually iden-tical to the proposed rule agreed to by FEMA on October 30, 1986. Only the last two sentences of the proposed rule have been revised for clarity.

Based on discussions between Marshall Sanders and Edward Podolak, it is our understanding that FEMA will provide the results of its review by March 27, 1987.

- .f ,

N, *hlih&$u~;

f..t Edward L. Jordan, Director

/

Division of Emergency Preparedness i

and Engineering Response l Office of Inspection and Enforcement i 1

Enclosure:

Final Rule Y[@pr 0

h 1

_~

UNITED STATES f-)

,n, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• W ASHING TO N, D. C. 20555

g. sp March 17,1987 -I

% .%" j

...+ /

i s

MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural'and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency {

(

j FROM: Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness .

and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR FEMA REVIEW 0F FINAL RULE REVISING EXERCISE TIMING PRIOR TO LICENSING As discussed at the March 9,1987 Steering Committee meeting, we request FEMA concurrence regarding the subject attached final rule. This is virtually iden-tical to the proposed rule agreed to by FEMA on October 30, 1986. Only the last two sentences of the proposed rule have been revised for clarity.

Based on discussions between Marshall Sanders and Edward Podolak, it is our understanding that FEMA will provide the results of its review by March 27, 1987.

r .f ,

L.,12lipNWAua f j 4 *./t Edward Division L. Jordan, Director of Emergency Preparedness {

' and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Final Rule h ]

0

$# \

%g  !

l 3\

r l

1 l

.= .

h0 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 C F R Part 50 Production and Utilization Facilities; Timing Requirements for Full Par:ipation Emergency Preparedness Exercises for Power Reactors Prior to Receipt of an Operating License ACTION: Final rule.

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

SUMMARY

The N uclear R egulatory C ommission (NRC or Commission) is amending its reg ulations to relax the timing requirements for a full participation emergency preparedness exercise for power reactors prior to issuance of a full-power operating license (operation above 5% of rated power of the reactor). The amendment requires a full participation . exercise, including State and local governments, to be held within two years before the issuance of a full- p ow e r- operatin g license , as opposed to the current requirement of within one year. Licensee exercises without full participation by State and local governments are still required on an annual basis.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on (insert date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER).

i FOR FURTHER INFORM ATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Regulatory A applications B ranch , Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researc h , U.S. N uclear ,

Regulatory Commissicn, W as hin gton , DC 20555 Telep hone (301) 443-7657. j 1

SUPPLEMENT ARY INFORM ATION: l

{

I. Background 1986 The Commission published the proposed rule for comment on December 2, (51 FR 43369). The 30-day comment period was exten ded by the Commission on January 2 for 10 additional days. During the 40-day comment period a total of 18 pubile commer.ts were received. Nine supported the proposed rule and nine opposed it.

II. Summary of Public Comments and Commission Responses

1. Commonwealth Edison Summary of Comment  !

Commonwealth Edison su p ported that portion of the proposed rule extending from one to two years the period within which the pre-operational offsite exercise must be held. However, Edison disagreed with the last two sentences of the proposed rule which require the applicant to conduct an j exercise of its cnsite plan if the offsite exercise is more than one year prior

e 2

- J to issuance of the operating license. Edison argued that the addii.ional test would be of marginal value and might tend to introduce additdonal issues into the operating license hearis.9 On this basis Edison recommended deletion of the last two sentences of the proposed rule.

I Commission Response:

T he Commission disagrees that a pre-operational onsite exercise within one year before issuance of a f ull-pow er operating license is of marginal value. T he Commission's regulations now require, after the operating license is iss u ed , that offsite exercises be held every two years and that the licensee's onsite plan be exercised annually. This system ensures that the licensee's operational staff drill; its emergency response functions at least annually. These limited drills serve both to train new personnel and to ensure that existing personnel maintain their emergency response capability. It would be inconsistent with this philosophy to allow as much as two years to pass without any pre-operational onsite exercise of the utility's emergency response capability. The Commission is revising the last two sentences, which provide that a pre-operational onsite exercise be held within one year before operation above 5% of rated power, for purposes of clarity.

2. Edison Electric Institute Summary of Comment The Edison Electric Institute supported the proposed rule and did not suggest any changes te its text or rationale.

Commission Response None required.

3. Hunton and Williams '

Summary of Comment This law firm filed comments on behalf of Long Island Lighting Company (L1LCO). LILCO stated that it supported the amendment and agreed with the Comuission's basic premise that the two-year interval was adequate to ensure an acceptable level of emergency pre pared ness . LILCO cited its experience I with the Shoreham facility as supporting the need for the amendment, and disagreed with Commissioner Asselstine's view that the exemption process was the a p p ropriate means to address the problem. LIL C 0 did not offer any suggestions for charges in the proposed rule.

Commission Response Luae required.

4. Marvin Lewis

3 o

)

I Su mmar_y of Comment l

{

M r. Lewis opposed the proposed rule, stating that it would " w e'a k e n regulation and pose a danger to the health and safety of the public by allowing unlicensed operators more freedom to act with nuclear hazards before having proven that they can act responsibly."

Commission Response Licensees cre not being granted any additional " freedom" by this rule.

The full participation exercise must still be held prior to full-power operation of the facility and a pre-operational onsite exercise will continue to be required one year prior to full-power operation. The only chcnge is the timing of the full participation exercise.

5. Atomic Industrial Forum The Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) su p ported the proposed rule but pointed out, with respect to its last two sentences, that Section IV.F.2 of A p pen dix E already requires a licensee to conduct annual exercises of its emergency plan. AIF suggested that this was a redundant requirement and therefore the last two sentences of the proposed rule should be deleted.

Commission Response The Commission disagrees with this comment, but has revised the last two sentences of the proposed rule for purposes of clarity.

6. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Summary of Comment -

Stone & Webster supported the proposed rule end did not suggest any changes.

Commission Response l

l None required.

7. Seacoast A nti-Pollution League Summary of Comment The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (S ALP) opposed the amendment and

! agreed with the views of C om missioner A sselstine. SALP argued that L

emergency response personnel experience fairly rapid turnover, and therefore "a full scale exercise is needed a n n ually . " SALP did not accept the Commission's reliance on the fact taat State and local governments are often called upon to respond to a variety of non-nuclear emergencies.

Commission Response

. . . _ . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _._____m _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . ___m_ _ - - - ----_---.-______._----__._----.a

4 The Commission doas not agree that two years between full participation exercises is unwerrard.ed based on personnel changes. The Commission's and FEM A's rules have, since 1984, permitted the two-year cycle for full participation exerciscs for operating pla nts . The C o m missio n's view was in 1984, and is today, that there are more beneficial uses of State and local governments' resou rces , such as providing for ad ditional training and equipment, than using such resources to support an Annual full participation exercise.

The Commission does not rely primarily on the fact that State and local governments routinely rcspond to a variety of public emergencies. However, the basic principles involved in ha ndling non-nuclear emergencies, such as evacuations due to an impending hurricane or a leak of toxic chemicals, also apply in responding to a nuclear accident. This lends support to the rule because State and local emergency response organizations are frequently called upon and must maintain a high degree of readiness independent of '

nuclear power plant exercises.

8. Liz C ullington Summary of Comment Ms. Cullington opposed the proposed rule and stated as follows:

In extending the time period from one year to two, the N R C would be essentially handing to the utilities an across-the-board offer of total exemption from the requirement to prepare emergency response plans for reactors u nder licensing revie w , as long as an acceptable number of sheets of paper are submitted to the Con. mission with appropriate title pages. Under this proposed rule change, a utility could su bmit a xeroxed copy of Webster's Dictionary as its emergency response plan, and have no deadline for completing the plan itself, as a reality, for either exercising it, or demonstrating that it is feasible.

Commission Response The proposed rule is more limited in scope than the comment seems to suggest. It does not affect either the required content of emergency plans nor the need to exercise such plans on a regular basis. The amendment only extends from one to two years the period within which the preoperational full-pa rticipation exercise must be held. All other Appendix E and 10 C F R 50.47 requirements must continue to be met as a prerequisite for issuance of an operating license, including the requirement that a pre-operational onsite ,

exercise be held within one year before going above 5 percent of rated )

power. l

9. Georgia Power Company Summary of Comment The Georgia Power Company supported the proposed rule and did not

suggest changes in its text.

I

, 5 Commission Response None required.

10. Nuclear Information and Research Service Summary of Comment The N uclear Information and Research Service (NIRS) opposed the amendment, and stated three reasons for doing so:

1. " Changes [in emergency procedures] will be more likely to occur in a new plant w here last minute alterations in technical s specifications ,

g uidelines , newly trained operators, and actual equipment are common occurrences. It is precisely this kind of change which marks a new plant from an operating plant and which necessitates an exercise no more than one year prior to licensing."

2. An exercise no more than one year prior.to licensing "would ensure that any new government officials' or workers are familiar with the plans themselves, and are capable of carrying them out."

3. The one-year requirement has been easily satisfied in most cases, and a scheduler exemption is an avdilable option where needed.

i Commission Response Changes of the type cited by NIRS do occur prior to issuance of an operating license and throughout the life of an emergency plan. However, these changes would be addressed in the utility's emergency ph n . The proposed rule retains the requirement that a pre-operation.=1 onsite exercise be held within one year before going above-5 percent of rated power..

When changes in emergency procedures or personnel occur, it is the responsibility of the State or local government to ensure that personnel are adequately trained to carry out their functions under the plan. The licensee is required by Commission regulations to assist in such trainir v. See 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E, Section F (introductory paragraph). The proposed rale would permit the ese of a two-year cycle for the holding of a pre-operational offsite exercise. This timing would be consistent with the two-year cycle for the holding of a post-operational offsite exercise for operating plants which has been in effect since 1984.

Sound principles of administrative law dictate that where agency policy is no longer correctly reflected in its rules, rulemaking should be undertaken and public comment sought. The use of exemptions does not allow for public comment, and unnecessarily adds issues to ongoing administrative litigation.

The Commission now believes that a two-year period between full participation exercises should be used in all cases, and therefore has proceeded with j

rulemaking to codify this policy.

11. Union of Concerned Scientists /New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution i

^

. , 6 Summary of Comment The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the New England Coalition on Muclear Pollution ("EC NP) oppose the rule on the following grounds:

1. The Commission has not adequately explained its reasons fur making a change in policy.

2. The proposed rule ignores a distinction previously draw n between pre- and post-operational exercises.

3. The C om mission should have prepared a backfit analysis for the proposed rule.

Commission Response The logic for the proposed rule was stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, as follows:

Jhe C om mission in 1984 revised its emergency p repared ness regulations to relax the frequency of full participation exercises by State and local governments for sites with an operatin g license.

T his was dor:e in part because the Federal Energy Management Agency (FEM A), based on its experience in observing and evaluating exercises, adopted a biennial, rather than an annual, requirement for full participation exercises. Under the biennial requirement adopted by the Commission, State and local governments need only participate in one full participation exercise, at any site, every two years so long as they participate in a full participation exercise at each individual operating reactor site every seven years. The C ommis sion revised this reg ulation because it fou nd that a n n ual exercises used a disproportionate amount of Federal, State, and local government resou rces , and that State and local governments freq uently exercised their emergency preparedness capabilities by

' responding to a variety of natural and man-made emergencies, such as chemical spills, on a continuing basis. The Commission concluded th at biennial full participation exercises were adequate to protect public health and safety. The Commission in revising its regulations for full participation exercises retained the requirement for annual exercises of each licensee's emergency plan (49 cR 27733, July 6, 1984).

The C ommission did not make a 'similar change regarding the required frequency of full participation exercises at sites without an operating license. Pecause of the op portu nity in an operatin g license proceeding under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act for a hea ring on the results of a full participation ex ercise, this requirement created some difficulty in schedulin g the exercise so that it would allow time for a hearin g while still being conducted within one year of plant readiness to be licensed. In 1982 the C om mission a dopted a rule w hic h , by findin g that emergency

^

. 6 Summary of Comment The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the New England Coalition on Nuclehr Pollution ("E C NP) oppose the rule on the following grounds:

1. The Commission has not adequately explained its reasons fur making a change in pdicy.

2. The proposed rule ignores a distinction previously drawn between pre- and post-operational exercises.

3. The Commission should have prepared a backfit analysis for the proposed rule.

Commission Response The logic for the proposed rule was stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, as follows:

J he Commission in 1984 revised its emergency preparedness regulations to relax the frequency of full participation exercises by State and local governments for sites with an operating license.

T his was done in part because the Federal Energy Management Agency (FEM A), based on its experience in observing and evaluating exercises, adopted a biennial, rather than an annual, requirement for full participation exercises. Under the biennial requirement adopted by the Commission, State and local governments need only participate in one full participation exercise, at any site, every two years so long as they participate in a full participation exercise at each individual operating reactor site every seven years. The Commission revised this reg ulation because it found that an n ual exercises used a disproportionate amount of Federal, State, and local government resou rces , and that State and local governments frequently exercised their emergency preparedness capabilities by responding to a variety of natural and man-made emergencies, such as chemical spills, on a continuing basis. The Commission concluded that biennial full participation exercises were adequate to protect public health and safety. T he Commission in revising its regulations i

for full participation exercises retained the requirement for annual exercises of each licensee's emergency plan (49 FR 27733, July 6, 1984).

The C om mission did not make a 'similar change regarding the required frequency of full participation exercises at sites without an operatin g license. Because of the op portu nity in an operatin g I

license proceeding under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act for a hearin g on the results of a full participation ex ercise, this requirement created some difficulty in scheduling the exercise so that it would allow time for a hearing while still being conducted within one year of plant readiness to be licensed. In 1982 the C om mission a dopted a rule w hic h , by fin ding that emergency x

7 j l

I i

i i

prepared nes s exercist s were not required for a Licensing B oa rd , j A ppeal B oa rd , or C ommission decision , would have allowed the  !

exerche to be conducted close enough to a licensing decision to j avoid this difficulty and to avoid an nual pre-licensin g exercises ]

(47 F R 30232, July 13, 1982). However, the Court of Appeals for i the District of Columbia Circuit vacated that rulemaking. The court J held that the C ommission could not remove from the hearing J requirements of Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act a material )

issue relevant to its licensing decision, and that the prelicensin g j exercise was such a material issue. Union of Concerned j Scientists v. N R C , 735 F.2d 1437 ( D.C. Cir.1984), cert. denied 105 s S . C t. 815 (1985 ) . I I

The Commission has thus been left with a regulatory scheme for frequency of full participation emergency preparedness exercises that treats sites with an operating license differently than sites without an operating license. The Commission does not believe this disparity in treatment is warranted. The Commission is concerned about the {

i burden the present rule may place on State and local governments.

The requirement that those governments participate in a full  ;

participation exercise every two years is in ad dition to the l requirement for their pa rticipation at sites without an operatin g lice n se . R eq uirin g a n nu al participation at sites without operating licenses could thus place a significant burden on State and local government resources.

The Commission in the prior rulemaking determined that emergency preparedness would be a deq uate if State and local governments participated in an exercise every two years. There seems to be little reason why State and local governments nonetheless should have to participate in full participation exercises on an annual basis in the p re-licensin g stage solely because a license did not issue within 365 days of the exercise. The only requirement should be y that the participants be adegrately in place and trained to make the exercise mea nin g f ul. T his could well occur two years before issuance of an operating license. If the exercise demonstrates that preparedness was inadequate, then remedial steps, including another exercise, if appropriate, can be taken. Moreover, in accord with-the C ommission's regulations for sites with operatin g licen ses ,

applicants will still have to conduct annual exercises, i.e., if the full participation exercise is held more than one year before issuance of the operating license, then the applicant must conduct an exercise of its emergency plan before license issuance. However, that latter exercise neeo not involve State or local governments.

UCS points out that in a 1982 rulemaking on emergency planning, the Commission remarked on the desirability of having the pre-operational exercise close in time to commercial operation. The reason stated by the Commission was that the " exercises are best held at a later time, when the operating and management staff of the plant -- who are central figures in an exercise -- are in place and trained in emergency functions." (47 FR 30233, July 13,1982).

4

( 8 l

\

l

\ l l The Commission contir.ues to su pport this principle and has retained the i requirement that an onf te exercise of the emergency plan be held within une i

{ year prior to operation above 5 percent power.

I T he backfit rule, 10 C F R 50.109, applies only where the Commission i I seeks to impose new or different requirements on licensees. It does not apply J where requirements are either relaxed or deleted. In the latter case the Commission need only . find that the relaxation or deletion does not result in an inability to determine that pu blic health and safety is not adeq uately assured. That is not the case with respect to this rule.

12. Wells Eddleman, et al.

Summary of Comment Mr. Ed dlema n and others joining him oppose the amendment for the following reasons:

1. ...a one year time range before operation above 5% power is a practical maximum for giving an up to date " snap shot" assessment of the level and capability of emergency preparedness existing when the plant begins to operate."

2. Or4 year is adequate to litigate the results of the exercise, based on the Shearon Harris proceeoing.

3. "... nuclear accidents have a tendency to occur early in the operation of a nuclear plant...", citing Three Mile Island and the Browns Ferry Fire.

4 The rule is illegal because it is an attempt to deny hearing rights to interveners in the Shearon Harris case on the exemption granted from the existing one-year requirement.

Commission Response The Commission disagrees that a full participation exercise is needed within one year of opcratio n to demonstrate adequate emergency preparedness. The Commission has determined that a two-year cycle for full participation exercises is s ufficient for making a fin din g that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in * $ event of an accident.

The Commission has not premised this se,:dment on the time needed to litigate the results of an. exercise. U nder U C S v. N R C , 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C.

Cir. 1984), cert. denied 105 S.Ct. 815 (1985), it is clear that the results of exercises are litigable in the operating license proceeding, irrespective of w hen those exercises are he?d. Rather, one of the factors which led the Commission to propose this amendment was the observed difficulty of utilities in predicting a plant's readiness to go above 5 percent of rated power and the resulting difficulty of utilities scheduling the full participation exercise so that it would allow time for a hearing while still being conducted within one year of being ready to go above 5 percent power.

l. _

.- 9 W hile new plants may cr.perisuce a higher initial rate of operational events, these events rarely necessitate any offsite emergency response, much less constitute a major accident. (The fire at Browns Ferry was unrelated to its time in operation; it was caused by faulty maintenance procedures). In ai y case, the Commission is retaining the requirement that an onsite exercise of the emergency plan be held with in one year before operation above 5 percent of rated power.

The license and ex em ption have already been issued in the Shearon Harris proceeding. Inis rulemaking was not the basis upon which a hearing on the exemption request was denied.

13. Laura Drey Summary of Comment Ms. Drey opposed the rule change but stated no reasons.

Commission Response Nonc required.

14. .Kenneth Vickery Summary of Comment Mr. Vickery opposed the amendment, stating that "the N R C must know if the plants and the surrounding areas are ready for accidents when starting operation since many serious accidents occur early in the operating lives of nuclear power plants."

Commission Response l

See response to comment of Wells Eddleman, #12 above.

15. Rachel Allen Summary of Comment This comment was a duplicate of Comment #14.

16. Shaw , Pittman , Potts & T row bridge Summary of Comment T his law firm filed comments on behalf of 9 entities holding nuclear power plant operating licenses or construction permits. T hese commenters supported the proposed rule, fu nda mentally for the reasons cite d t' y the CommissMn in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The commenters also noted that the proposed rule uses the term " full-scale exercise" which is otherwise undefined in the regulations and recommended that the term " full participation exercise" be used.

10 Commission Respons_e The term " full-scale exercise" has been replaced with the term

" full-participation exercise" and the last two sentences of the proposed rule 1 heve been revised for purposes of clarity. i

17. Carolina Power and Light Company q Summary of Commer.t l Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) supported the amendment and i; cited reasons similar to those given by the Commission. CP&L noted that its  !

recent experience in licensing the Shearon Harris facility bore out the need for the rule change.

Commission Response None required.

18. Ncrth Carolina Departraent of Crime Control and Public Safety Summary of Comment This commenter supported the proposed rule on three grounds:

1. It makes the N R C rule consistent with FEM A's and increases internal consistency in N F C regulations.

2. It reduces undue burdens on State and local governments.

3. It allows more time for litigation of the results of a pre-operational e x ercise.

Comniission Response The reasons given by this commenter support the Commission's position as stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

III. Commission Decision The Commission has reviewed all comments received and has decided to proceed with a final rule. The text of the proposed rule has been altered as noted in the response to comment #5 above. Upon publication of the final rule, a full participation' exercise must be held within two years prior to issuance of a nuclear power plant operating license for operation above 5 percent rated power. If the full participation exercise is conducted more thar, one year prior to issuonce of an operating license for full power, an onsite exercise which tests the licensee's emergency plans shall be conducted one year before issuance of an operating license for full power.

.. ,. 11 4

l i

1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact The C c t ricsion ha dctermined under the tiation61 Environn.ent61 Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action sig nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. See 10 C F R 51.20(a)(1). Moreover, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 C FR 51.32, that the final rule has no signi#icant environmental impact. This determination has been made because the C om mission cannot identify any impact on the human environment associated with changing the timing of full participation of State and local governments in pre-licensing emergency preparedness exerr.ises from within one year of license issuance to within two years.

The need for this rulemaking is explained in the Supplementary Information ,

accompanying this final rule. The alternative approaches that were considered '

in this rulemaking proceeding were:

1. To retain the requirement for a full participation exercise within one year of issuance of an operating license.

2. To relax the req uireme nt to within two years of issuance of an operatin g license.

There were no environmental impacts identified from either of the alternatives con sid ered .

In a d dition , when p rom ulgatin g the original emergency plan ning and prepared ness reg ulations in 1980, the NRC prepared an "E n viron m e ntal Assessment for Fir.al Changes to 10 C FR Part 50 and Appendix E of 10 C FF.

Part 50, Emergency Pla n nin g Requirements for N uclear Power Plants" (fl V R E G-0685, Ju ne 1980), and concluded that under the criteria of 10 C F R Part 51 an en viron m ental impact statement was not required for the Commission's emergency planning and preparedness reg ulations , w hich inclu ded 10 C F R Part 50, A pp. E as hereby revised. N U REG-0685 may be examined in the Commissicn's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NU., ,

W a s hin gton , DC. Copies are available for purchase for $3.75 through th e. i S u perinten dent of Documents, USGP0, Box 37082, W as hin gto n , DC, 20013-7082.

l Paperwork Reduction Act

{'

I The final rule contains no information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 ( 44 U . S . C . 3501 et s eq . ) .

Regulatory Analysis I

s

)

12 a

i l

The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis for this regulation.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the action and the alternatives considered by the Commission. A copy of the regulatory analysis is av ailable for ins pection and copying, for a fee, at the NRC P u blic Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, W as hin gton , DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Michael T. Jamgochian, Regulatory Applications B ra nch , Office of N uclear R eg ulatory Research, U.S. Mclear R eg ulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 443-76J.

Backfit A nalysis l This final rule does not modify or add to systems, structures, components or design of a facility; the design ap proval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility. Accordingly, no backfit analysis oursuant to 10 C FR 50.109 is required for this final rule, i

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In acccrdance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The rule concerns the timing of a full participation exercise of emergency plans for applicants for nuclear power pla nt licen ses . The electric utility companies ow nin g and operating these nuclear power plants are dominant in their service areas and do not fall within the definition of a small business found in the S mall B usiness Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business Size standards set forth in 13 C F R Part 121. Althou g h part of the burden for the conduct of emergency preparedness exercises falls on State and local governments, the final rule, by changing the frequency of the requirement, if anything lessens the amount of the current burden. T hus, the findi rule does not impose a sig nifica nt economic impact on a su bstantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. t List of Subjects in 10 C F R Part 50 fl Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernme ntal relation s , N uclear power plants and reactors, P e n alty .

, R adiation p rotection , R eactor siting c riteria , Reporting and recordkeeping i

requirements, l For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority cf the ,

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorga nization Act of I 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopts the following arrendment to 10 C FR Part 50:

PART 50 --

DOMESTIC LIC E N SIN G 0F P R O D U C TIO N AND U TILIZ A TIO N F A CILITIES l

1. T he authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows: l l

1 I

l i

a

,- .. 13 i

I 1

i A uthority : S ec s . 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5642, 5846),

unless otherwise noted.

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sections 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issueo under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec.186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 63 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),

50.10 (a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54 and 50.80(a) are issued under sec. 161b , 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); 50.10 (b) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec.161i, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i); and 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(o)).

P A R T 50 -- [ A M E N D E D]

A ppen dix -- [ A men dcc']

2. In App. E. Sec. IV.F.1 is revised to read as follows:

1. A full participation n4 exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory l public participation shall he conducted for each site at which a puwer reacter  !

is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued after July 13,1982. This exercise shall be conducted within two years before the issuance of the first operating license for full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power of the first reactor, and shall include participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each state withir the ingestion ex pos u re pathway EPZ. If the full '

participation exercise is conducted more than one year prior to issuance of an  !

operating licensee for full power, an onsite exercise which tests the licensee's emergency plcns shall be conducted within one year before issuance of an operating license for full- power. The onsite exercise need not have State or i local government participation. l n 4 " F ull pa rticipation" when used in conju nction with emergency l l

preparedness exercise for a particular site means appropriate offsite local and State authorities and licensee personnel physically and actively take part in testing their integrated capability to adequately access and respond to an accident at a commercial n uclear power plant. " F ull participation" includes testin g the major observable portion s of the unsite and offsite emergency l

l

i 14

.(

plans and mobilizatwr. of S tate , local and licensee person nel and other resources in sufficier.t r.umbt.rs to verify the capability to respond to the accident scenario.

I Dated at Washington, D C , this day of 1987.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. C hilk ,

Secretary of the Commission.

l l

l l

1 l

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _