ML23151A496

PR-050 - 58FR34539 - Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness - Exercise Requirements

ML23151A496
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/28/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-050, 58FR34539
Download: ML23151A496 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 06/28/1993 PR-050 - 58FR34539 - PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES; EMERGENCY PLArJfV I(\)~ ~

(}.flgp Mle:bN~ -

S)C&7U,,i g G> IZ"7Q ui ft vn e tt ts PR-050 58FR34539 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:

PR-050 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES; EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS -

EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

58FR34539 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

06/28/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS:

I I

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE:

FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

NOTES ON PROPOSED RULE SIGNED BY THE EDO.

FILE LOCATED ON 16-G.

ATUS RULE 12 I

I TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050 RULE TITLE:

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES; EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS -

EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS

.OPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 90-103 SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER:

SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT1: MICHAEL T. JAMGOCHIAN MAIL STOP: NLS-324 PHONE:

CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP:

PHONE:

06/14/93 I

I 492-3918

DOCKET NO. PR-050 (58FR34539)

DATE DOCKETED 06/29/93 07/26/93 07/30/93 08/18/93 09/02/93 09/13/93 09/13/93 09/13/93 09/13/93 09/15/93 09/16/93 09/20/93 09/20/93 In the Matter of PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES; EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS - EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS DATE OF TITLE OR DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/14/93 07/23/93 07/26/93 08/13/93 08/26/93 09/07/93 09/13/93 09/13/93 09/13/93 09/13/93 09/10/93 09/15/93 09/13/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE COMMENT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (TOM MILLWEE) (

1)

COMMENT OF VA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (A. E. SLAYTON, JR.) (

2)

COMMENT OF STATE OF ILLINOIS (THOMAS W. ORTCIGER, DIRECTOR) (

3)

COMMENT OF MARYLAND DEPT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (MERRYLIN ZAW-MON) (

4)

COMMENT OF STATE OF WA DEPT COMM DEV, EMERG MGMT DV (JOSEPH W. MURRAY) (

5)

COMMENT OF SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (DAVE MOREY) (

6)

COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (J. T. BECKHAM, JR.) (

7)

COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MGMT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (THOMAS E. TIPTON) (

8)

COMMENT OF INDIANA MIGHIGAN POWER COMPANY (E. E. FITZPATRICK) (

9)

COMMENT OF ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH (GRETA J. DICUS) (

10)

COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (M. L. BOWLING) (

11)

COMMENT OF NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP (TED FEIGENBAUM) (

12)

North

~----S'.*1;~.-- Atlantic Energy Service Corporation

• 93 SU' 20 P 3 :32

}I Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

'*.I NYN-93124 P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 Telephone (603) 474-9521 Facsimile (603) 474-2987 Ted C. Feigenbaum Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer September 13, 1993

Reference:

Facility Operating License No. NPF-86, Docket No. 50-443

Subject:

Proposed Rule: Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements (FR34539)

Gentlemen:

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic), as managing agent for Seabrook Station, is pleased to offer comments on the subject proposed rule.

North Atlantic supports the proposed rule. The change in the requirement for exercising the ingestion exposure pathway emergency plan from once in five to once in six years (Appendix E,Section IV.F Training; 2.d) makes NRC guidance in this regard consistent with that of FEMA. The six-year interval can also more easily be aligned with the biennial interval. This significantly simplifies scheduling for plants such as Seabrook Station which must coordinate with three states.

North Atlantic also agrees with the deletion of the regulation that requires all states within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) for a given site to fully participate in an offsite exercise for that site at least every seven years.

The biennial exercise requirement ensures state participation since EPZ community participation and exercise demonstration relies on state direction.

Deletion of this rule will allow states with multiple sites more flexibility in scheduling their level of participation for a given site.

Since one of the purposes of the proposed rule is to remove inconsistencies and clear ambiguities, North Atlantic recommends consideration of the additional changes indicated on the enclosure to this letter.

If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Donald R. Tailleart, Emergency Preparedness Manager at (603) 474-9521, extension 3482.

TCF:JBH/act Enclosure Very truly yours,

~ ef:&-~

a member of the Northeast Utilities system

'C;f Si't*t';GJ ~-:J _'(1 A!:JVJ:l:!' 38 ' Hl ::.** *. * ;._. ")

NOll~:lJ 3:);fliJ ;* '. ~ ', *.*,*.. UJ "JOISSIVJWO~ A~o1v*.n).:.,::,J\

0

~

N *; a

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch cc:

Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Albert W. De Agazio, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Noel Dudley NRC Senior Resident Inspector P.O. Box 1149 Seabrook, NH 03874 September 13, 1993 Page two

ENCLOSURE 1 TO NYN-93124 North Atlantic September 13, 1993

Recommended Revisions to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E Proposed or Recommended Change:

Correct the inconsistencies between Appendix E.IV.F.1 and NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Section 0.4.

Comment:

Numerous differences exist between NUREG-0654 training categories and Appendix E.IV.F.1 training categories.

The following inconsistencies should be reviewed and corrected in the upcoming revision:

(a)

NUREG-0654, Section 0.4 identifies ten specific training categories (paragraphs a through j), whereas Appendix E.IV.F.1 identifies only nine categories (paragraphs a through i). NUREG-0654 identifies the tenth category (paragraph j) as:

"Personnel responsible for transmission of emergency information and instructions." This category is redundant as it is incorporated in the other training categories recognized by Appendix E.IV.F.1.

Appendix E should note this inconsistency.

(b)

The third training category (paragraph c) listed in Section 0.4 of NUREG-0654 lists a training commitment involving "radiological analysis personnel" in addition to the "radiological monitoring teams" referenced by the third training category (paragraph c) of Appendix E.IV.F.1.

We recommend adoption of the NUREG-0654, Section 0.4 wording.

(c)

"Fire control teams (fire brigades)" are specifically recognized by paragraph (d) of Appendix E.IV.F.1 whereas NUREG-0654, Section 0.4, paragraph ( d) recognizes "Police, Security and Fire fighting Personnel". The definition of a fire brigade differs at each site. Since each site provides for "fire brigade" training in conjunction with 10 CFR 50, Appendix R requirements, Appendix E should delete this reference. If the fire brigade reference remains in Appendix E.IV.F.1, we recommend that a note is added referencing each site's technical specification definition of "fire brigade".

Proposed or Recommended Change:

The proposed Appendix E.IV.F.2 states "The plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of emergency preparedness exercises as follows:

Exercises shall...test the public notification system... ".

Comment:

The words "test the public notification system" should be deleted.

The proposed Appendix E.IV.F.2 describes the general elements to be included in both onsite and full participation exercises. Since the activation of the public notification system is a component of the offsite plans only, testing the system should only be a part of the full participation exercise. Deleting the words would eliminate confusion as to whether testing the public notification system is required as part of the onsite exercise.

Recommended Revisions to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E Proposed or Recommended Change:

Proposed Appendix E.IV.F.2 (e) states "Licensees shall enable any State or local government located in the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in annual exercises when requested by such State or local government".

Comment:

The wording of the above requirement is inconsistent with the requirement for full participation exercises to be conducted every two (2) years. If biennial exercises are the rule, then that should be the standard. As stated, a licensee must "enable" State/local participation annually if they decide that it is warranted. To most State and local organizations, the word "enable" means that the licensee is required to provide financial reimbursement for State/local participation where this has been common practice. In addition, many local participants will not participate unless the event is scheduled off-hours. Both conditions mentioned present the licensee with a considerable budgetary commitment. It is also not clear what benefits would be gained by State and local organizations by participating in an exercise that, by design, focuses on licensee response organization performance and may have little, if any, off-site consequences.

DOCKET NUMBER PRO OSED RULE PR 5 ~f /< 3'-/--S-___ 3..,__q.._~ -

_*_r, t. i :. i '

U)Hi{C

• 93 SCP 20 P 2 :CS September 15, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES Serial No.

NL&P/RBP EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS -

EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS 5000 Dominion Bouleuard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 VIRGINIA POWER 93-410 In the June 28, 1993 Federal Register, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed to revise its emergency planning regulations to update and clarify ambiguities that have surfaced in the implementation of the Commission's emergency planning exercise requirements.

We endorse the NUMARC comments sent separately to the NRC.

Consistency between FEMA guidance and NRC regulation could occur for ingestion pathway exercises if the NRC modified the proposed rule to permit states with multiple sites to test ingestion exposure pathway measures at least once every six years rotating participation between sites. The proposed requirement results in an unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees and the state, when the State has already satisfactorily completed its participation requirements for FEMA and needs only to participate in the testing again to satisfy the NRC site specific requirement.

If the purpose of State participation is to ensure State readiness, single site participation, as FEMA permits, should functionally suffice. We concur with NUMARC that the NRC should amend this requirement.

Should you have any questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours,

~~~

M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Programs

~S-N'.JC!.U~ q!_=GULATORY COMMISS10f't DO'.: '.t:~*,,:G SERVICE SECTION OFF,1' ~ OF THE SECRETARY Or l HE COM'/.l0SION

cc:

Mr. Ron Simard Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-3706

DOCKET NUMBER PR Pf":OPOSED RULE O

~/

O

(.r J>' Ff<. 3 '-/531)

Lo/

~

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTI!f,}::

4815 WEST MARKHAM STREET* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205-3867 TELEPHONE AC 501 661 -2000

• 93 SEP 16 A 9 :53 JIM GUY TUCKER GOVERNOR M. JOYCELYN ELDERS, M.D.

September 10, 1993 Secretary of the Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DIRECTOR

_f :, !' ;

~11Jl,KL; 1rP:.,

~.ih,-\Nt:*,:

SUBJECT:

REVISION OF EMERGENCY EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS (SP-93-077)

\.' l (. f We have reviewed the subject revision to 10 CFR Part 50 and concur with the proposed change.

Changing the ingestion exposure pathway exercise interval from 5 to 6 years brings the NRC requirement in line with the FEMA requirement which has been in effect for several years.

Sincerely,

<!}t~8

• Q,~

Greta J. Dicus, Director Division of Radiation Control & Emergency Management.

rad :458

'ti5.,*! :**

r

• u1.,,;()RYCOMMISSIOl\i

[;J::. :*, -

-~.: c:-1\!ICf. SE:CflON r:f ;,.. :.. i..: *1,. '= Sf:CFiETAHY Fr.*-'.::,,*. *:

C(:..

{\'! ' (.

e;;: 1"1*,'.::* Cut,;'.,il0JION

' --- _!?J_}_; ;,,....._Jq_3 __

I

Indiana Michigan Power Company P.O. Box 16631 Columbus, OH 43216

\.'.~rt_i L>

l.bNhl

• 93 S[P 15 m C :3 8

.~r::!!..' :.r

',!,t ;,.. t t1CLh_ii:'il:

"*,\\\\/:f.f i f*.,\ i\l H The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch September 13, 1993

Dear Mr. Secretary:

m INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER AEP:NRC:0508AC Volume 58, No. 122 of the Federal Register includes notification that the NRG is proposing to revise its emergency planning regulations.

We are providing comments regarding the proposed rulemaking.

We believe that the proposed NRG rule concerning licensee participation in ingestion pathway exercises should be modified to ensure it conforms to the FEMA guidance in FEMA REP-14.

Specifically, the wording in the NRG rule should reflect that ingestion pathway exercise participation should be rotated between licensees in states with more than one reactor site.

FEMA guidance, which governs State participation, requires the State to participate once every six years with a licensee. If NRG guidance would require participation by each licensee in the State in that six year time frame, then states such as Michigan (with four licensees) would require four such exercises in six years instead of the one that would be required by the host state's guidance (FEMA REP-14).

We request that the NRG rule be changed to be consistent with the guidance on ingestion pathway exercises in FEMA REP-14, to eliminate this potential for placing an undue burden on both state and licensee resources.

Se~~

E. E. Fitzpatrick Vice President

/eg cc :

A. A. Blind - Bridgman

as. NUI.",.,:f\9 REGULATORY COMMISSIOI'.

Ot):_. " '=Hm & SERVICE SECTION O, f ICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Add'! '.. ""\:,.. :.::. I I

Specia: L.: '. :-:,, t,J1~

,,___fJ"""'5..,,_......... ---'-_,__

d4.-wv:jPch. ~

~-UPOSED-RU~ PR 5 O;;;.

(s-s,- F l'2 3'"' s~'~ 'icu Cf)

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL USl-iHC 1776 Eye Street, NW

• Suite 300

• Washington, DC 20006-3706 Thomas E, Tipton Vice President & Director Operations, Management and Support Services Division Mr. Samuel J. Chllk Secretary (202) 872-1280

• 93 EP 13 P 4 :QQ September 13, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:

Dear Mr. Chllk:

Docketing and Service Branch U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule, Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness --

Exercise Requirements 58 Fed. Reg. 34539 (June 28, 1993)

Request for Comments These comments are submitted on behalf of the nuclear power industry by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC)1 in response to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request for comments (58 Fed. Reg. 34539, June 28, 1993) on proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,"Section IV, "Content of Emergency Plans," F, "Training."

Considerable experience has been obtained since the inception of emergency planning regulation for the commercial nuclear power industry. Based on that experience, we reviewed not only the proposed rule changes that correct a number of inconsistent rule applications, but also the entire training sectio~ (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F) for possible ambiguities and inconsistencies in the present 1 NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

Mr. Samuel J. Chill<

September 13, 1993 Page 2 requirements. Therefore, this letter includes comments applicable to the proposed rule revision, and comments on other portions of Appendix E,Section IV.F, consistent with the intent of the proposed revision, i.e., to "update and clarify ambiguities that have surfaced in the implementation of the Commission's emergency planning exercise requirements." (58 Fed. Reg. 54539)

The industry concurs with and supports the proposed rule revision, addressing language inconsistencies among rule applications, changing the interval for an ingestion pathway exercise from five years to six years, and eliminating the seven-year return exercise frequency for states which are in the plume exposure pathway for multiple sites.

However, there is a direct conflict in one area.

As stated in the proposed rule (Section IV.F.2.d), "Each State within any ingestion exposure pathway EPZ shall exercise its plans and preparedness related to ingestion exposure pathway measures at least once every 6 years" is in direct conflict with FEMA guidance FEMA REP-14, "Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Manual."

FEMA REP-14, Task 2, Ingestion Pathway Exercises, states, "A State should fully participate in the ingestion pathway portion of exercises at least once every six years. In States with more than one site, the State should rotate this participation from site to site."

In the REP-14 document, FEMA allows a state with more than one reactor site within its boundaries to rotate the participation in ingestion pathway exercises from site to site.

The NRC's proposed rule change, however, requires each site in a given State to test every six years. The result is an unnecessary burden on the licensee and the State with no added benefit to protecting public health and safety. For consistency, the wording of the two documents should be the same. We recommend that the NRC allow rotation in participation in ingestion pathway exercises in States with more than one reactor site.

Based on industry and NRC experience in emergency planning exercises and commercial nuclear power plants, the following additional recommendations are provided for NRC consideration. These comments address sections of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.

Section IV.F.2 of the rule describes testing of the public notification system during an exercise. The NRC has permitted the industry to test the public notification system at a time that is more appropriate for those affected. A revision to the rule should be made to reflect this flexibility.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk September 13, 1993 Page 3 Based on industry experience, the requirement of the paragraph following Section IV.F. l.i to provide radiological orientation training to local news media has not been cost effective. The level of interest from local media has declined over the years, resulting in a substantial burden on the industry with little or no benefit to the health and safety of the public. We suggest "local news media persons" should be deleted from this section. The following sentence should be added: "The local news media shall be acquainted on a periodic basis with information on emergency plans, information concerning radiation and points of contact for release of public information in an emergency."

Regarding Section IV.F.2.b, on May 3, 1993, NUMARC submitted comments concerning the Virginia Power petition for rulemaking (58 Fed. Reg. 12339, March 4, 1993). The proposed rule and supporting industry response to the proposed rule have made a substantial case for changing the frequency of the required emergency planning exercise from annual to biennial. We encourage the NRC to bring the proposed petition for rulemaking to closure as soon as possible.

Section IV.F.2, footnote 3, states that, "Use of site specific simulators or computers is acceptable for any exercise." This requirement should be deleted based on the letter of November 5, 1992, from Dr. Thomas E. Murley to Regional Administrators ( copy enclosed) stating, "While using control room simulators for purposes other than operator training and examination may be beneficial, the NRC has no statutory or regulatory requirements for any of these other uses." This will make the regulation consistent with this position.

Section IV.F.2.g states, "All training, including exercises, shall provide for formal critiques in order to identify weak or deficient areas that need correction.

Any weaknesses or deficiencies that are identified shall be corrected." The requirement that "all" training provide for formal critiques is excessive in scope, burdensome, and ineffective in its application to some forms of training.

Emergency preparedness training is conducted for a very broad and diverse group of onsite and offsite responders, and is conducted in various forms, including:

drills and exercises, classroom instruction, self-study modules, table-top sessions, walk-through drills, and practical demonstrations. Some forms of training, such as drills and classroom instruction, lend themselves well to formal critiques. These other forms of training do not, and the formal critique process does not accomplish

Mr. Samuel J. Chill(

September 13, 1993 Page 4 the purpose for which the process is intended in a performance-based program.

"All" should be deleted.

NUMARC appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Alan Nelson, John Schmitt, or me.

TET/APN:sp Enclosure

UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 November 5, 1992 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator, RI Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, RII A. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator, RIii James L. Milhoan, Regional Administrator, RIV John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV Frank P. Gillespie, Director FROM:

SUBJECT:

Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff, NRR James G. Partlow, Associate Director for Projects, NRR William T. Russell, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment, NRR Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTROL ROOM SIMULATORS On September 14-15, 1992, representatives from NRC headquarters and the regional offices attended a Nuclear Management and Resource Council (NUMARC) meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, to discuss the initial qualifjcation training, requalification training, examination, and licensing of reactor operators.

One of the issues raised at the meeting was the increasing use of control room simulators for purposes other than operator training and examination. Other areas in which control room simulators have been used, or in which their use is being considered, include, emergency preparedness, security and human factors.

We, as well as the industry, are concerned that these other uses may have a detrimental effect on the limited resources available for training and examining operators.

Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directed the NRC to promulgate regulations or other appropriate guidance to establish requirements for using simulators in training and examining operators to license and requalify them.

The NRC established such requirements by amending 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators' Licenses,* effective May 26, 1987. While using control room simulators for purposes other than operator training and examination may be beneficial, the NRC has no statutory nor regulatory requirements for any of these other uses. Therefore, the use of simulators

Multiple Addressees November 5, 1992 to train and examine operators must retain the highest _priority, and other uses must not interfere with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 55.

It is essential that the use of control room simulators for activities that are not related to operator licensing activities does not detract from, nor interfere with, operator training or examination.

We must ensure that we are not leading the licensees to believe that the use of control room simulators for purposes other than operator training and examination is an NRC requirement.

We should encourage licensees to fully utilize their simulator resources, and we should not discourage licensees from using simulators for purposes that improve safety, but we must keep in mind that simulators are only required for operator training and examination.

If you have any questions on this matter, please call me.

Original signed b7

"'1omas x *. ~ley; Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Georgia Power Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 877-7279 J. T. Beckham, Jr.

[ r. Cl*.::T NUMBER I F-'vl liSED RULE PR 5

( ~ f-F f7-3 --:

4 ~5 ---

?J q~r)~ -

@)

,\

Georgia Power Vice President - Nuclear Hatch Project the southern electnc system Docket Nos.

50-321 50-424 50-366 50-425 September 13, 1993 I

SEP J 3 l~93

)

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION : Docketing and Service Branch I '}

Comments on Proposed Rule "Production and Utilization Facilities; HL-3460 LCV-0143 Emergency Preparedness and Planning - Exercise Requirements" (58 Federal Register 34539 of June 28, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Georgia Power Company has reviewed the proposed rule "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Preparedness and Planning - Exercise Requirements," publi shed in the Federal Register on June 28, 1993.

In accordance with the request for comments, Georgia Power Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments wh ich are to be provided to the NRC.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, JTB/JDK

l}.S. rJ'.,;(:t.*~ '*:,;:_:*i 1 ** :Ji"S y COMMISSIOt-.

DC:C'--

• .

• i~\: : S'., ~,CE Si:CTION OF1*i*~.: OF Tt-*:: ~;E.CR'::TARV OF Tl :t~ CC~.'~il::vlON

[,, fj'";',.. : "'1:*~*'.~tJ~

Po~**..,, -. 1 /*ip__j_Cf. ) Ffl£ ul p.,v q I t ?y (113 c~~;. :

p ~*,.,

• ~ *_,;~i L'1~>,l,~:J;j fli;YJ5-j11.J.L..!..'-J--

-=R(__.=~

-acl.J/At'\_, _. ___ _

Georgia Power, \

700775 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two cc: Georgia Power Company C. K. McCoy, Vice President, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant J. B. Beasley, General Manager - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant H. L. Sumner, Jr., General Manager - Plant Hatch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC K. N. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch D. S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator L. D. Wert, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle HL-3460 LCV-0143

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone (205) 868-5131 Dave Morey Vice President Farley Project

~ @

Southern Nuclear Operating Company the southern electnc system Docket Nos.

50-348 50-364 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission September 13, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule "Production and Utilization Facilities; 5E P I 3 1993 Emergency Preparedness and Planning - Exercise Requirements" (58 Federal Register 34539 of June 28, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company has reviewed the proposed rule "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Preparedness and Planning - Exercise Requirements," published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1993.

In accordance with the request for comments, Southern Nuclear Operating Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted,

~~

Dave Morey

/

DNM/JDK

U.S. it :.. *L~;,

,RY COMMISSIOf'.

Cu v ECTION

(_,, :-*,,t_,

I TARY

(

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cc : Southern Nuclear Operating Company R. D. Hill, Plant Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D. C.

T. A. Reed, Licensing Project Manager, NRR U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator G. F. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector Page Two

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT *93 SEP 13 P) :39 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 4220 E. Martin Way

• Post Office Box 48346

• Olympia, Washington 98504-834~ ; _!L},-'~. -~ 1: 1 1;,V1j**r (206) 459-9191

• SCAN 585-9191 ul,CK, *Jl.*l~ N*L,I

~Kh Nuclear Regu]atory Commission Secretary of the Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

September 7, 1993 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Revision of Emergency Exercise Requirements (SP-93-077).

Staff have reviewed the proposal and coordinated with the counties in the plume area of the nuclear power plant. We agree with the Commission's recommendations for changes that would make exercise requirements the same as those used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for offsite evaluated exercises. This will avoid the confusion that has often existed among licensees and state government.

Since Washington State is soon to be impacted by only the WNP-2 plant, many of the problems associated with states having multiple nuclear power plants have not occurred within our state. However, we do realize that this has been a problem for other states and we appreciate the Commission making the changes to the rules.

JWM:MAP:mlh Sincerely, seph W. Murray Assistant Director 0

UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt,..

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION

t*,".te HUMBER r ~. +,.:,sEo RULE PR 5-0 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTcs

• ~--,..........,.,..,_g-n)@

2500 Broening Highway

• Baltimore, Maryland 21224: Cr,i_ ; U:

(410) 631-3000 LJ:) Ni C

!11!

William Donald Schaefer Governor

• 93 SEP -2 A11 :4o David A.C. Carroll Secretary August 26, 1993 Secretary of the Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 RE:

REVISION OF EMERGENCY EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS (SP-93-077)

Dear Sir/Madam:

The State of Maryland supports the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AD40 "Production and Utilization Facilities: Emergency Planning and Preparation - Exercise Requirements". As proposed, this ruling would simplify the exercise participation requirements for State and local governments having off site planning responsibilities for more than one nuclear power plant. In addition, the proposed rule would be consistent with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It is important that on-site and off-site plan requirements be consistent and clear, thus eliminating any ambiguity between licensees and State governments. The proposed rule accomplishes this and has the endorsement of the State of Maryland.

Sincerely,

~ f ~~(;,\

Merrylin Zaw-Mon State Liaison Officer MZM:edjg TDD FOR THE DEAF (410) 631-3009 "Together We Can Clean Up" Recycled Paper

\1,S NU i -::p;:: qr:CULATORY COMMISSIO~

DO - -* * ;*i, '8 Pc. i::.~ C:VICE SECTION l'ff,1.:.: Or r:-'E ~CRETARY e,r ii :l: CG1* :t:r; ~<..ION Pc*, *. *. r> *?

-~ }J d CJ}

• • _..-s-___ _

[6.,,; ; '. ::,,_Jf;I,}257 Pl](LJ

_)_~ ~q..{'c,._

UJ.. ~ _

Jim Edgar Governor DEPARTM 10 SPRI D *Cl<ET NUMBER

.,*<c'S§;::...~7;:,;:"'*--'* Pf~OPOSED RULE PR ) Z)-- --

(5"/rF- 'f<. 3 'I ) '!J q)

RSAFETY YE 169"IOiuG 18 P 4 :23 Thomas W. Ortciger

, Director

'.*',.,:.._~"~}.. :~~,1/2~~->*):-':r*

1.,

L, 1

j August 13, 1993 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch RE:

Proposed Rule : Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness--Exercise Requirements (Federal Register Vol.

58, No. 122)

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) hereby submits its comments concerning the above-mentioned proposed rule.

IDNS is the lead agency in Illinois for preparing emergency plans for, and (in cooperation with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency) coordinating emergency responses to, accidents at nuclear power plants.

The Department welcomes the NRC's effort to make NRC and FEMA guidance compatible. We have no difficulty with the overall rationale for this rule change as it affects states that must deal with one or two sites.

The si t uation in Illinois, however, with seven sites within the State's borders, requires a significant, continuing commitment to ensure the maintenance of off-site emergency preparedness and response capability. Given the requirement to ensure that the elements of each plan are fully demonstrated at least once during each six-year period, reducing this state's commitment to one full-scale exercise every two years would be unacceptable.

For that reason, it is unlikely that the Department would alter its existing practice of full participation in at least one exercise annually and partial participation in the remaining exercises.

We do not believe, however, that NRC has substantiated its claim that the seven-year return requirement is unnecessary.

Similar arguments have surfaced in previous emergency planning issues, and our response is the same:

the high level of industry sensitivity to emergency preparedness is a direct result of comprehensive requirements for emergency preparedness programs and exercises.

Elimination of those requirements runs the risk of returning the industry to pre-TMI levels of preparedness.

@ recyclable OCT 1 1993 cKnc,w1edged by caro..........................,...

• 1J,!;. MUi:LF.:*:~ 1<.' :,:u\l(;i-W ~O~*l:V.:~.-::10~

O() C-i<r~*T ::.:,:~ ~, srq;.. ::.:;,: ::r C,*lt\'4 on: 1.~ ::: O:; THE $:::CHl:1 -'.RY or-l hi:: er: :v:~1:5 SION

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 August 13, 1993 The Department is also concerned that the proposed rule change involves the potential interpretation by FEMA and NRC that full participation by a state with multiple sites more often than biennially might not be subject to FEMA and NRC evaluation.

The proposed rule is silent on this issue.

We believe that FEMA and NRC should clearly state the commitment to continue to support evaluation of full-scale exercises that are conducted more frequently in those states that choose to do so.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call Andrea Pepper of my staff at (217)785-9890.

TWO:sjs cc :

Dave Smith, !EMA Doug Scott, CECo Mike Lyon, IP

{i)

'93 JUL 30 P 3 :OO COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA A E. SLAYTON, JR.

State Coordinator Keith R. Keister Deputy Coordinator Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Department of Emergency Services July 26, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch 1 i. * ! L..

r 1_

1,~ r tii;Lfii i !'*,

• v1{;brurnerRoad

!l I,FHdilmb'nd, Virginia 23225-6491 (804) 674-2499 (TDD) 674-2417

REFERENCE:

Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Services has reviewed the proposed rule to change emergency planning requirements as published in the Federal Register, dated June 28, 1993.

The Commonwealth of Virginia agrees with and supports the subject revision which would change the interval for an ingestion exposure pathway exercise from five to once every six years. This provision would be consistent with Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements for state and local governments' participation in ingestion pathway tests and demonstrations.

The Commonwealth also has no objections to the proposal to delete the rule that requires states within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone to participate in an off-site exercise at least once every seven years. The State of Virginia currently fully participates in a plume exposure pathway exercise with the licensee at each site every two years, rotating between the two commercial nuclear power stations within the state on an even/odd-year basis. In addition as a practice the Commonwealth participates on a limited scale in the licensee's annual exercise during the off year.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

AESjr/ GOU/ sdg C:

L.M. Girvin S.D. Ebneter F.H. Thomas Sincerely, ::.3 1-*-~r.

OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card.............................. ""

DOCKET NUMBERPR 50 PROPOSED RULE

.,,,r ~-; ~L.'{s ~- F----R_3_l./_5 3 °r)

'j'.)Nl',C V

DIVISION OF EMERGENCY M.ANAqf'rJIP.~T TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC s~T'PJ[

ANN W. RICHARDS Governor Secretary of the Commission 5805 N. Lamar Blvd.

Box 4087 Austin, Texas 78773-0001 Duty Hours 512 465-2138 Nonduty Hours 512 465-2000 FAX 512 465-2444 July 23, 1993 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 122, Monday, June 28, 1993 JAMES R. WILSON Director TOM MILLWEE Coordinator

(!)

Subject:

Proposed Rules Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirement The NRC's proposal to revise the emergency planning cycle is valid.

Sufficient experience has been gained over the years that make a more frequent offsite exercise unnecessary. Changing the interval for an ingestion exposure pathway exercise from 5 to 6 years and deleting the requirement for a full participation exercise every 7 years are positive steps to reduce the burden on the utilities, without sacrificing the safety and health of the public. The 5 to 6 year change would be consistent with the State of Texas exercise requirements and FEMA's exercise requirements.

Recommend proposed rules be adopted.

Sincerely, Tom Millwee State Coordinator STM/RQ/mdd OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card....... -..................... ".

~ *, ~, ~:*.....: --:..

('. !11,Jta! 06fl L" t;l°'

')f,i1:r rf 1h:; iUU::.! S-~Qi~1(i{'

/,y ~1u.b!ic:.r!Jon, **** - -~- :r-

_, /t'ttlemg//:,y /~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN:

3150 - AD40 Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness -

Exercise Requirements AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

• 93 JUN 29 A11 :57

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to revise its emergency planning regulations. The proposed rule would update and clarify ambiguities that have surfaced in the implementation of the Commission's emergency planning exercise requirements.

q /13/93 DATES:

The comment period expires (75 days after publication in the Federal Register).

Comments received after this date will be considered if practical to do so, but only those comments received on or before this date can be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Conuni;;: b j~3

Washington, DC 20555, or may be hand-delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

Copies of corrments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW, (Lower Level)

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co1T111ission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301-492-3918).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BACKGROUND On August 19, 1980, (45 FR 55402) the NRC published a final rule that revised its emergency planning regulations. The final rule became effective on November 3, 1980.

On July 6, 1984 (49 FR 27733), the NRC amended its emergency planning regulations to relax the frequency of participation by State and local governmental authorities in emergency preparedness exercises at nuclear power reactor sites. The amendments were based on the NRC 1s experience gained in observing and evaluating emergency preparedness exercises since 1980.

Further experience has shown that the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.3 on full.or partial participation by State or local governments in the biennial (offsite) exercise are unnecessarily complicated.

Additionally, the Connnission believes that the interval for an ingestion exposure pathway exercise should be changed from 5 to 6 years, and 2

that the regulation be deleted that requires all states within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) for a given site fully participate in an offsite exercise for that site at least once every 7 years.

The Commission finds that the current regulation has resulted in a relatively complicated description of the requirements for exercise participation by State and local governments who have offsite planning responsibility for more than one nuclear power plant. This proposed rule would simplify and clarify this requirement.

In addition, Appendix E would be revised to reflect that the interval for an ingestion exposure pathway exercise be changed from at least once every 5 years to at least once every 6 years (FEMA's ingestion pathway exercise requirement is at least once every 6 years). The change in the interval would match the biennial frequency required for exercises of offsite plans. Further, Appendix E also would be revised to eliminate the 7 year return frequency requirement because it has proven to be unnecessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule as well as being burdensome to states which are within the plume exposure pathway for multiple sites (FEMA does not have a return frequency requirement).

Both changes would assure compatibility with FEMA requirements and thus avoid confusion among licensees and State governments.

Notwithstanding elimination of the 7 year return frequency requirement, the Co1T111ission believes that offsite authorities should rotate their full participation in exercises among sites if they are within the plume exposure pathway for more than one site.

The Commission codified the 7 year return frequency in the July 6, 1984 3

(49 FR 27733) amendment to the emergency planning regulations. This amendment provides that at least once ~very 7 years, all states within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of a given site must fully participate in an offsite exercise for that site. In so doing the Co1TU11ission noted that "the final rule is not totally consistent with FEMA 1s final regulation (44 CFR Part 350).

This inconsistency lies in the area of return frequency of multiple-site states as previously discussed. The FEMA position on return frequency is a significant departure from the NRC 1s proposed regulation of July 21, 1983 (48 FR 33307).

The Convnission believes that more study is needed before deletion of the return frequency requirement can be justified."

The Connnission now believes that sufficient experience has been gained in the observation and evaluation of emergency preparedness exercises at nuclear power reactor sites to conclude that the 7 year return frequency can be deleted.

The Corrmission has found that multi-site states, when not fully participating in an exercise at a specific site will usually partially participate at a significant level of activity every 2 years at that specific site in order to support the participation of the appropriate local governments.

The Convnission has found that this level of exercise participation provides adequate emergency response training for State and local governments. Additionally, a provision still exists in the regulation which permits State or local government participation in the licensee 1s annual exercise. A State or local government may consider its response capability to be less than optimal because of an unusually large personnel turnover or 4

because there have been limited responses to real emergencies in the community.

The regulation still requires the licensees to provide for State or local government participation if they indicate such a desire. This proposed revision would not have any adverse impact on public health and safety because State emergency response personnel continuously respond to actual emergencies and experience has shown that states through a combination of full and partial participation exercises maintain an adequate level of response capability. A formal requirement for a state to return to a specific site every 7 years to participate in an exercise has proven to be unnecessary.

This rulemaking would delete that unnecessary, unwarranted and burdensome requirement.

Lastly, the proposed revision would delete past due dates [see Section F(2) (a)] because they are now meaningless.

The NRC staff consulted with the FEMA staff during the development of this proposed rule.

SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM Co1TV11enters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of the letter in electronic form on 5.25 or 3.5 inch computer diskette:

IBM PC/DOS or MS/DOS fonnat.

Data files should be provided in WordPerfect format or unfonnatted ASCII code.

The format and version should be identified on the diskette's external label.

5

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Co11111ission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

The proposed rule would update and clarify the emergency planning regulations relating to exercises.

It does not involve any modification to any plant or revise the need for or the standards for emergency plans, and there is no adverse effect on the quality of the environment.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, (Lower Level)

Washington, DC, 20037.

Single copies are available without charge upon written request from NRC Distribution Section, Office of Information Resources Management, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0011.

6

Regulatory Analysis The Con111ission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Corrnnission.

The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L St., NW., (Lower Level) Washington, DC 20037.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Michael Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con111ission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone: (301) 492-3918.

Backfit Analysis This proposed rule would not impose any new requirements on production or utilizati-0n facilities.

The proposed rule would delete the requirement that all states within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for a given site fully participate in an offsite exercise for that specifi~ site at least every 7 years. It also relaxes the requirement to perfonn an ingestion exposure pathway exercise from every 5 years to every 6 years. These changes would permit, but do not require, licensees to change their emergency plans and procedures. Therefore, these changes are not considered backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (a)(l).

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would update and clarify 7

ambiguities in the emergency planning regulations relating to exercises.

Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition of small business in Section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121, or the Commission's Size Standards published at 56 FR 56671 (November 6, 1991). Therefore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis need not be prepared.

List of Subjects Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

8

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282):

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Section 50.13, 50.54 (dd) and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91; and 50.92 also issued under Pub.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 issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).

Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

9

2.

Appendix E to Part 50 is amended by revising Section IV.F. to read as follows:

APPENDIX E - Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities.

IV.

Content of Emergency Plans F.

Training

1.

The program to provide for (a) the training of employees and exercising, by periodic drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific emergency response duties, and (b) the participation in the training and drills by other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency shall be described. This shall include a description of specialized initial training and periodic retraining programs to be provided to each of the following categories of emergency personnel:

i.

Directors and/or coordinators of the plant emergency organization; ii.

Personnel responsible for accident assessment, including control room shift personnel; 10

iii Radiological monitoring teams; iv.

Fire control teams (fire brigades);

v.

Repair and damage control teams; vi.

First aid and rescue teams; vii. Medical support personnel; viii. Licensee's headquarters support personnel; ix.

Security personnel.

In addition, a radiological orientation training program shall be made available to local services personnel; e.g., local emergency services/Civil Defense, local law enforcement personnel, local news media persons.

2.

The plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of emergency preparedness exercises as follows:

Exercises shall test the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and methods, test emergency equipment and communications networks, test the public notification system, and ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties.

3 3use of site specific simulators or computers is acceptable for any exercise.

11

a.

A full participation4 exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted for each site at which a power reactor is located.

This exercise shall be conducted within two years before the issuance of the first operating license for full power (one authorizing 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 within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ.

If the full participation exercise is conducted more than one year prior to issuance of an operating licensee for full power, an exercise which tests the licensee's onsite emergency plans shall be conducted within one year before issuance of an operating license for full power.

This exercise need not have State or local government participation.

b.

Each licensee at each site shall annually exercise the onsite emergency plan.

4"Full participation" when used in conjunction with emergency preparedness exercises 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 assess and respond to an accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.

"Full participation" includes testing major observable portions of the onsite and offsite emergency plans and mobilization of state, local and licensee personnel and other resources in sufficient numbers to verify the capability to respond to the accident scenario.

12

c.

Offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially with full participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan.

Where the offsite authority has a role under a radiological response plan for more then one site, it shall fully participate in one exercise every two years and shall, at least, partially participate 5 in other offsite plan exercises in such period.

d.

Each State within any ingestion exposure pathway EPZ shall exercise its plans and preparedness related to ingestion exposure pathway measures at least once every 6 years.

e.

Licensees shall enable any State or local government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in annual exercises when requested by such State or local government.

f.

Remedial exercises will be required if the emergency plan is not satisfactorily tested during the biennial exercise, such that NRC, in consultation with FEMA, cannot find reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

The extent of State and local participation in remedial exercises must be sufficient to show 511Partial participation" when used in conjunction with emergency preparedness exercises for a particular site means appropriate offsite authorities shall actively take part in the exercise sufficient to test dtrection and control functions; i.e.,

(a) protective action decision making related to emergency action levels, and (b) communication capabilities among affected State and local authorities and the licensee.

13

that appropriate corrective measures have been taken regarding the elements of the plan not properly tested in the previous exercises.

g.

All training, including exercises, shall provide for formal critiques in order to identify weak or deficient areas that need correction.

Any weaknesses or deficiencies that are identified shall be corrected.

h.

The participation of State and local governments in an emergency exercise is not required to the extent that the applicant has identified those governments as refusing to participate further in emergency planning activities, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(l).

In such cases, an exercise shall be held with the applicant or licensee and such governmental entities as elect to participate in the emergency planning process.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this the Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission.

Executive Director for Operations 14 1993 For