ML23159A120
| ML23159A120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/14/1995 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 60FR19002, PR-050 | |
| Download: ML23159A120 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 04/14/1995 PR-050 - 60FR19002 - PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES; EMERGENCYPLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS PR-050 60FR19002 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:
60FR19002 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
04/14/95 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 07/13/95 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
18 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 61FR30129 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 06/14/96 NOTES ON: AMENDMENT ALLOWS GREATR FLEXIBILITY IN LICENSEE'S EMERGENCY PREPAR STATUS EDNESS TRAINING ACTIVITIES IN THE 2-YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN BIENNIAL F OF RULE: ULL-PARTICIPATION EXERCISES. FINAL RULE EFF 7/15/96.
FILE ON Pl.
HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050 RULE TITLE:
PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES; EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 95-038 SRM DATE:
03/14/95 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 96-060 SRM DATE:
05/08/96 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE 04/07/95 06/10/96 CONTACT!: MICHAEL T. JAMGOCHIAN, RES CONTACT2:
MAIL STOP: T9-F33 MAIL STOP:
PHONE: 415-6534 PHONE:
DOCKET NO. PR-050 (60FR19002)
In the Matter of PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES; EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 04/10/95 04/07/95 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 05/15/95 05/09/95 COMMENT OF CLEAN WATER FUND OF NORTH CAROLINA (DR. CARL RUPERT) (
- 1) 05/30/95 05/22/95 COMMENT OF OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (T. L. PATTERSON) (
- 2) 06/07/95 05/30/95 COMMENT OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (JANE HINDMARSH) (
- 3) 06/15/95 06/09/95 COMMENT OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY (THOMAS W. ORTCIGER, DIR.) (
- 4) 06/21/95 06/20/95 COMMENT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (RICHARD A. RATLIFF) (
- 5) 06/22/95 06/15/95 COMMENT OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (PATRICK P. CARIER) (
- 6) 07/03/95 06/27/95 COMMENT OF DUKE POWER CO (M.S. TUCKMAN) (
- 7) 07/03/95 06/29/95 COMMENT OF TU ELECTRIC (J.S. MARSHALL) (
- 8) 07/05/95 06/30/95 07/11/95 07/10/95 COMMENT OF NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP (MARTIN J. MCCORMICK, JR.) (
- 9)
COMMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (JOHN F. SCHMITT) (
- 10) 07/11/95 07/10/95 COMMENT OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO (W.H. BOHLKE) (
- 11) 07/14/95 07/14/95 COMMENT OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM (J.F. OPEKA) (
- 12) 07/17/95 07/11/95 COMMENT OF DUQUESNE LIGHT CO (GEORGES. THOMAS) (
- 13) 07/17/95 07/13/95 COMMENT OF DETROIT EDISON (LYNNE S. GOODMAN) (
- 15)
DOCKET NO. PR-050 (60FR19002)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/17/95 07/14/95 COMMENT OF ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC (JERROLD G. DEWEASE) (
- 16) 07 /17 /95 07/12/95 COMMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (CHARLES F. WYNNE, DIRECTOR) (
- 14) 07/21/95 07/13/95 COMMENT OF BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO (ROBERT E. DENTON) (
- 18) 06/12/96 06/10/96 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE
00 KETED US RC
.96 JJ 12 Ir85:(W-o 1 - P l OFFICE O SEC ETARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI~Tlt...t SEf ICE B,?A CH 10 CFR Part 50 RIN:
3150-AF20 DOCKET NtlABER R PROPOSED RULE
§Q
( CooR \\9 ooa)
Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements AGENCY :
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION :
Final rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its emergency planning regulations.
This amendment allows greater flexibility in ~he licensee ' s emergency preparedness training activities in the 2-year period between biennial full-participation exercises.
The amendment (a) preserves the requirement that each licensee, at each site, conduct an emergency preparedness exercise biennially, with full participation by State and local governments that are within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) ;
(b) reduces the required frequency of exercising the licensee's onsite emergency plan from annual to biennial; (c) requires licensees to
~~- t,p\\,l{.-\\~to
(~lFR.,~C\\~C\\)
ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained between biennial exercises by conducting drills, at least one of which must involve : ~me of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities; and (d) requires licensees to continue enabling State and local governments that are in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zones (EPZs) to participate in drills.
With this amendment, the Commission is granting, in part, a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Virginia Electric Power Company on December 9, 1992 (PRM-50-58).
EFFECTIVE DATE:
in the Feden:tl Register.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301-415-6534); E-mail MTJl@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC received a petition for rulemaking submitted on December 9, 1992, by the Virginia Electric Power Company that was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-58.
The petitioner requested that the NRC amend,Section IV.F.2., of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities," to change the requirement that each site exercise its emergency plan biennially rather than annually.
The petitioner's proposed amendment would have required each licensee to conduct a biennial full participation exercise of the emergency plan at each site and to take actions necessary to ensure that its emergency response capability is maintained during the 2-year interval.
The petitioner believes that the annual graded exercise is but one of many indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can and will be taken during an emergency situation that will provide for the health and safety of the public.
The NRC published a notice of receipt for the petition on March 4, 1993 (58 FR 12341).
A total of 32 comment letters were received and considered when developing a proposed rule concerning the issues raised by the petitions.
A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19002).
Public comments were requested by July 13, 1995.
A total of 18 comment letters were received, of which 12 utilities, 2 State emergency management agencies, and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) supported the proposed rule change.
One State e.,ergency management agency and an environmental group opposed the proposed rule change.
One ---------------------- ----- --- ------
letter received from a State emergency management agency had no comment on the proposed rule change.
NRC Response to Pu~lic Comments The comment letters that were received provided many thought-provoking and constructive comments.
The Commission's evaluation of and response to these comments is presented in the following section.
Issue 1.
While the biennial exercise provides the opportunity for broad based State and local participation in exercising offsite plans and procedures, the annual graded utility exercises enhance the biennial exercise process by providing State liaison personnel and their utility counterparts the opportunity to remain proficient.
A 2-year gap will lessen proficiency.
Response.
It is clearly not the Commission's intent to lessen the proficiency at any level of the emergency planning organization (onsite or offsite) with the rule change.
The Commission believes that interaction and training problems that might arise as a result of deletin : the annual onsite exercise would be resolved by requiring licensees to enable any State or local Government to participate in the licensee's drills when 4 -
requested by the State or local Government.
The Commission is confident that, if a State governmental emergency response agency feels the need to participate in a drill that would require specific offsite interaction and decisionmaking capability, the licensee would accommodate the State agency's request within the framework of the drills that the licensee conducts throughout the 2-year period between the biennial full participation exercise.
In fact, a State who was originally against granting the petition for rulemaking because of similar concerns stated the following in their comment on the proposed rule.
"We were among those initially opposed to the Virginia Electric Power Company petition that prompted this rule change, primarily because of a perceived potential for a diminution of emergency preparedness capability on the part of licensees.
However, we acknowledge that the compromise embodied in the Commission's proposed rule change offers adequate assurance that ongoing licensee emergency preparedness activities will continue at a reasonable level.
Because of the number of licensees and the capacity of the State's emergency response organizations, when appropriate (this State) will invoke the language of the proposed rule change that requires licensees to '... enable any State or local government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the licensee's drills when requested by such State or local government.'"
Issue 2.
County, State, and utility emergency preparedness will degrade under a biennial scheoule.
Mini-drills will not take the place of annual exercises as now constituted.
- Further, States have been encouraging more Federal exercise participation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and NRC.
The proposed change would cut back on the opportunities to test current personnel and train new personnel.
Response.
The Commission disagrees.
The rule change does not require "mini-drills" to replace annual exercises.
The rule change does require that "the licensee shall take actions necessary to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained... by conducting drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities."
(10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.F.2.b.)
Additionally, the opportunity to test and train new personnel is provided by requiring that "Licensees shall enable any State or local Government... to participate in the licensee's drills" (Id at IV.F.2.e.)
Issue 3.
There is a need for clarity regarding State and local participation in the exercises and drills that are proposed to replace the annual NRC graded exercise.
At 60 FR 19002; dated April 14, 1995, licensees are charged to "enable" States and local governments to participate in these exercises and drills, but at 60 FR 19006, activating all response facilities (Technical Support Center, (TSC); Operations *upport Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)) is no~ necessary.
Because State and local governments coordinate interaction through the EOF and Media Centers, clarification is required.
For example, perhaps the utility would be charged with exercising the EOF and Media Centers as a part of at least one exercise and/or drill each year.
Response.
Based on the extensive coordination and cooperation between licensees and State and local governments over the last 15 years, the Commission is confident that, if a State or local governmental emergency response agency felt the need to participate in a drill that included interaction at the EOF and Media Centers, the licensee would accommodate the request within the framework of the drills that the licensee conducts throughout the 2-year period between the biennial full participation exercises.
Issue 4.
Rather than eliminating any requirements, it is suggested that each site initially be granted a waiver for "off-year" integrated exercises.
The waiver would be effective only as long as an acceptable level of emergency response capability is maintained.
Response.
The Commission disagrees.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule would accomplish the commenter's objective without the extensive NRC resources that implementing the commenter's suggestion would r~quire.
- 7
- Issue 5.
The Commission does not appear to have addressed the quantitative question about expected turnover rates that would be important in determining whether biennial exercises could substantially reduce loca} team skills.
Response.
Please see the response to Issue 1.
Additionally, the Commission has always been and continues to be committed to the principle that there exists "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency."
If, this finding is jeopardized either at the State or local governmental level, additional training would be warranted and would be provided by participating in the drills the licensee conducts between biennial exercises.
Issue 6.
The Commission has not adequately addressed local Government comments on the importance of regular exercises for improving coordination and communication.
Response.
The Commission did not receive any comments from local governments relating to this petition for rulemaking.
Nonetheless, the Commission is confident that if a local Government wished to improve its coordination and communication capabilities, licensees would welcome its participation in one or more cf the onsite drills that *1ill be conducted between the biennial exercises.
Issue 7.
The Commission has not addressed the FEMA concern that regular cooperation with offsite teams may play a critical role in their preparedness, which may be especially important in view of thE potential role such teams may play as first responders in actual emergencies.
Response.
Prior to publishing the proposed rule, the Commission received FEMA's assurance that their concerns with the petition for rulemaking had been resolved.
Nonetheless, regular cooperation between offsite and licensee emergency response teams will be ensured by the requirement that licensees enable any state or local Government within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone to participate in the licensee's drills upon request.
Issues Raised by Petitioner The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety.
The petitioner has identified grounds for change for a number of issues associated with the current requirement to conduct an emergency plan exercise annually.
petitioner follow: The issues presented by the
(1)
The requirement to conduct an integrated annual exercise is not clearly defined.
Therefore, the regulation should be clarified.
(2)
The existing regulation, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is inconsistent with other regulations that govern the frequency of offsite response organization integrated exercises (i.e., 44 CFR Part 350)
(3)
The performance of offsite response organizations during biennial exercises has confirmed that a biennial frequency is sufficient to provide the reasonable assurance finding.
(4)
The existing regulation, 10 CFR 50.54(t), provides for an independent review of the adequacy of the program.
(5)
The existing requirement to conduct an annual exercise is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
A biennial exercise is sufficient to provide an acceptable formal confirmation of capability.
(6)
Reconsideration of the requirement is warranted in light of the completion and implementation of enhanced emergency preparedness facilities, the current level of industry proficiency and performance, and the increased industry sensitivity to emergency preparedness.
(7)
Personnel could be utilized more effectively in their normal professional function rathe - than by participating in a resource-intensive integrated test that only serves to confirm the already existing level of the response capability.
(8)
Emergency planning resources could be utilized more effectively to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness activities.
Commission Response The Commission believes that it is important, in light of public comment, as well as the discussion provided in the petition, to clarify NRC's intent (under the existing rule) that licensees need not conduct annual exercises with scenarios that progress to severe core damage or result in offsite releases.
Historically, these scenarios were used in both the biennial full-participation exercise of offsite emergency plans and the annual exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan; this is no longer necessary for the currently required annual exercises of the licensee's onsite emergency plan.
Information Notice (IN) 87-54, "Emergency Response Exercises," was issued to clarify NRC intent in this regard and to provide detailed guidance, specifically on the types of "off-year" training activities that licensees can perform during the interval between the biennial full participation exercises to maintain adequate EP response capabilities and to satisfy the rule.
Some licensees have availed t ~emselves of the flexibility afforded by the IN 87-54 guidance to conduct realistic, interactive "off-year" training activities that simulate less 11 -
severe events, such as a minor fire, loss of electric power, or equipment failure, and focus on the capability of the onsite emergency response organization to diagnose problems and develop actions to successfully mitigate th~ scenario event.
However, as noted in the petition, many licensees continue to employ severe accident scenarios in annual exercises of their onsite emergency plans.
Accordingly, the Commission is revising Section IV.F.2.b. of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, to (1) reduce from annual to biennial the frequency of exercising the licensee's onsite emergency plan (which may be included in the biennial full participation exercise specified in IV.F.2.c.) and (2) require licensees to conduct training drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities.
This drill would be conducted between biennial full participation exercises to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained.
The principal functional areas of emergency response include activities such as management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
This approach is consistent with a comment from one State that favored the petition for rule laking but preferred that some guidelines be included in Appendix E requiring plant specific internal exercises during the "off-year" to ensure plant personnel familiarity with their response plans rather than the vague expectancy that this activity will be done.
Furthermore, licensees would continue to enable State and local governments in the plume exposure pathway EPZs to participate in drills in the interval between exercises, thus, preserving their training opportunities.
The Commission believes that the final rule may result in the reallocation and more effective utilization of resources in some licensees' emergency preparedness (EP) programs as they further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness capabilities during the "off-year" periods.
However, it is not clear that these changes will result in significant overall cost savings.
The Commission cautions specifically against expectations that the final rule will necessarily result in significant reductions in NRC inspection activity concerning licensees' "off-year" EP maintenance activities.
Also, licensees will, upon request, submit scenarios for NRC review as may be deemed necessary by NRC in support of future inspections.
Conclusion Having considered the arguments presented by the petitioner as well as evaluating all public c)mments received, and based on a further understanding of the issues involved gained from 14 years of experience evaluating licensee emergency preparedness 13 -
exercises, the Commission concludes that (1) the required frequency for exercising the licensee's onsite emergency plan should be reduced from annual to biennial, ( 2) the means by which licensees are expected to train and maintain their emergency response capabilities and readiness in the 2-year interval between evaluated exercises should be changed to require licensees to conduct drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities, and (3) opportunities for training of State and local Government personnel must be preserved.
The principal functional areas of emergency response include management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
During the specified drills, activation of all of the licensee's emergency response facilities (Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC); and the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)) would not be necessary.
Licensees would have the opportunity to consider accident management strategies, supervised instruction would be permitted, operating staff would have the opportunity to resolve problems (success paths) ra cher than have controller ; intervene, and the drills could focus on onsite training objectives.
The final rule relieves licensees from the current requirement to conduct a full formal exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan annually, and gives licensees the flexibility to choose the activities to be conducted in the 2-year period between biennial full-participation exercises in order to maintain their emergency response capabilities.
Greater flexibility in the training of the onsite emergency response organization can provide significant benefits to some licensees.
For example, licensees can eliminate the practice of developing scenarios that proceed to severe core damage, offsite releases, or to highPr emergency classification levels.
Licensees will have greater opportunity to conduct realistic emergency response training with supervised instruction that allows the operating staff to consider accident management strategies, diagnose problems, and be given credit for actions that would mitigate scenario events.
This approach is also responsive to public commenters who expressed concern about a possible decrease in licensee training and readiness in the period between biennial exercises.
Under this approach, licensees will still be required to conduct emergency response training and drills of the onsite emergency response organization, as well as provide training opportunities to State and local Government pers nnnel during the interval between biennial exercises.
The final rule completes NRC action in response to PRM-50-58.
The final rule grants the petitioner's 15 -
request that the frequency of required onsite emergency response plan exercises be reduced from annual to biennial.
Additionally, 10 CFR 50.47(a) (1) is being revised in order to correct a typographical erro~ that appeared in the 1993 edition of Title 10, Parts Oto 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In the 1993 edition, the word "protectionn was substituted for "protective measuresn in 10 CFR 50.47(a) (1).
This action corrects this paragraph to read as follows:
"... reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken... "
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
The rule will 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.
There is no adverse effect on the quality cf 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval Number 3150-0011.
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared 2 regulatory analysis on this final regulation.
The analysis examir.es the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.
The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; Telephone: (301) 415-6534.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The final rule updates and clarifies the emergency planning regulations relating to exercises at nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definitL.,._ 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).
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Backfit Analysis The final rule clarifies the intent of the existing regulation and facilitates greater flexibility in licensees' conduct of "off-year" emergency response training activities.
This action does not seek to impose any new or increased requirements in this area.
The changes permit, but do not require, licensees to change their existing emergency plans and procedures to employ scenarios in "off-year" training or drills that do not go to severe core damage or result in offsite exposures.
No backfitting is intE -.ded or approved in connection with this final rule change.
- 18 -
List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, reporting and record keeping 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 adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
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, 223S 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
19 -
- 2.
In Section 50.47, paragraph (a) (1) is revised to read as follows:
§ 50.47 Emergency plans.
(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
No finding under this section is necessary for issuance of a renewed nuclear power reactor operating license.
- 3.
Appendix E to Part 50 is amended by revising section IV, F. paragraphs 2.b., and e. to read as follows:
Appendix E -- Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities IV.
Content of Emergency Plans F.
Training
- 2.
- b.
Each licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan every 2 years.
The exercise may be included in the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph 2.c. of this section.
In addition, the licensee shall take actions necessary to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained during the interval between biennial exercises by conducting drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities.
The pLincipal functional areas of emergency response include activities such as management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
During these drills, activation of all of the licensee's emergency response facilities (Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)) would not be necessary, licensees would have the opportunity to consider accident management strategies, supervised instruction would be permitted, operating staff would have the opportunity to resolve problems (success paths) rather than have controllers intervene, and the drills could focus on onsite training objectives.
21 -
- e.
Licensees shall enable any State or local Government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the licensee's drills when requested by such State or local Government.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, Lhis 10th day of June, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/4__
Hoyl'.e, S cretary of the Commission.
Indiana Michigan Power Company P.O. Box 16631 0~mlil,@ 43216 USNRC
. L U., C m
INDIJINJI MICHIGAN POWIR AEP:NRC:0S0SAM Docket Nos.: 50 -315 50 - 316 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 PROPOSED RULE CHANGED CONCERNING EMERGENCY PLANNING AND EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS Volume 60, No. 72 of the Federal Register includes proposed rule changes to Appendix E,Section IV, F.2, to 10CFR Part SO, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities. 11 The following are our comments regarding the proposed changes.
We agree with the wording of the proposed change.
We also concur with the petitioner's contention that an annual exercise is not cost effective for either the Federal Government or the licensee.
In view of the steady industry improvement in the area of emergency preparedness, as evidenced by the improvement in industry-averaged SALP ratings, we believe that biennial exercises will be sufficient to assure the protection of public health and safety.
Sincerely, lo~':!/~
V Vice President blb c:
A. A. Blind G. Charnoff H. J. Miller NFEM Section Chief NRC Resident Inspector - Bridgman J. R. Padgett
'"AUG 1 8 1995_-
Acknowfedged by card.................................
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAT Y CO 1SS DOCKETING & SERVICE S OFFICE THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSIO Copies Rea, Ad<fl Copies DoalnentStddcl
Secretary ROBERT E. DENTON Vice President Nuclear Energy DOCKETED USNRC
- 95 JUL 21 A 9 :25 OFFICE OF SECRETARY OOCKETl~'G & S R' ICE BRA NCH U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
Docketing and Services Branch Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 20657 410 586-2200 Ext. 4455 Local 410 260-4455 Baltimore Comments on Proposed Rule Change; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements (60 FR 19002)
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is pleased to provide the following comments regarding the proposed rule change.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company supports the NRC's conclusion that:
The required frequency for full, formal exercise of the onsite emergency plan should be reduced from annual to biennial; The means to train and maintain emergency response capabilities and readiness in the two-year interval between formal exercises should be changed such that proficiency in these areas will be ensured by informal drills; and Opportunities for training State and local governments should be preserved.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company has acquired extensive experience with, and insight into, a nuclear facility's emergency response needs. Emergency response program enhancements resulting from actions by the NRC after the Three Mile Island accident have matured significantly. Program maintenance at the level of readiness will not be jeopardized by a change in the frequency of full, formal exercises. The flexibility provided by the proposed rule change allows the licensee to test response organizations in accident scenarios that more accurately reflect plant design.
AUG 1 _8 __ 19_95...,._.__
Acknowledged by card.........................,.,,.... 11
. NUCLEAR REGUL,6-roRY COMMISSIOl'i DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmarl( Data 7 It 7 / 9 (
Olpies Received __
......,/'---___
Ni I Coptes Reprod~ed ""'j '-----r---
c1<11 r sh~,0,1 j£L~ t2[Jll
_ X-1v~och.1~,
7
Docketing and Services Branch July 13, 1995 Page 2 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company applauds this action by the Commission. It is our firm belief that the proposed rule change is consistent with the industry's endeavor to protect public health and safety through emergency preparedness.
Should you have questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
RED/JMO/dlm cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J.E. Silberg, Esquire L.B. Marsh, NRC D. G. McDonald, Jr., NRC T. T. Martin, NRC P. R. Wilson, NRC R. I. McLean, DNR J. H. Walter, PSC
--=-- ENTERGY DOCKETED USNRC Entergy Operations, Inc.
rj.U Rn, 3199:i J.1,c1,s
- 1i1S 30286-1fl5 fd 601 368 5760 July 14, 1995 Secretaiy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C\\Jmmis;:;ion Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch
- 95 Jl1 17 P 3 :20 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SER I CE BRANCH f-I* /3111 368 5~b3 Jerrold G. Dewease DOCKET NUMBEff PROPOSED RULE PR 5 0 (60FR!9Doj_)
SUBJECT:
Draft "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Prtparedness Exercise Requirerr..ents, (60 Fi:>d R*~:;! 19002, April 14 1995)
CNRO-95/00016 Gentlemen:
Entergy Operations, Tnc. (LOI) is p:cased to rx*rnm\\!nt llf'0n the ancve-cited Federal Register notice. We strongly suppon the propcsed rule and believe that biennial (versus annual) exercises are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health and safety. We believe the proposed rule will result in resource savings for both EOI and the NRC without a reduction in emergency preparedness effectiveness. Training should be enhanced by having the off-year to devote to realistic training activities (and not the demonstration of emergency preparedness readiness as is the current case).
Finally, we believe that the role of the off-site agencies will not be diminished by the rule.
These agencies will continue to be a vital part of EOI's emergency preparedness activities.
Ectergy Operations, lnc. appreciates the opportunity to p*.:i'ide cor::-..11:ents on the subje,:1:
notice.
Sincerely, g/~
~\\,
JGD/RLT/baa cc:
AUG 1 8 1995 ~
Acknowledged by card.................. u.........a-
U.S. NI/'
- i,(I' _,..*,*A, Y COMMISSIO~
DuCK 1*Tif~.3 ~ :;E-.RVICE SECTION Of-rlCI: Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date
"'1 / I ~1/95 C:oClies Received ___
AMI Co *es Reproducoo...;;..3 ____
"- c;;i lY.stribution_/2:ftJS1 PIJflv t
- ili=~~
J.a;~.U&..,___ ___
_ :_{;,_o>>_::;-~a.J O b, 7/li/'iS
Draft "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements," (60 Fed.~- 19002, April 14, 1995)
July 14, 1995 CNRO-95/00016 Page 2 of2 cc:
Mr. R. P. Barkhurst Mr. J. L. Blount Mr. L. J. Callan Mr. J. L. Colvin Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. C. R. Hutchinson Mr. G. Kalman Mr. I-I. \\V. Kci~er Mr. J. R. McGaha Mr. R. B. McGehee Mr. A. Nelson (NEI)
Mr. P. W. O'Connor Mr. C. P. Patel Mr. N. S. Reynolds Mr. D. L. Wigginton Mr. J. W. Yelverton
Detroit Edison Fermi2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, M1ch1gan 48166 (313) 586-4000 DOCKETED USNRC "95 J1 11 P 3 :1 a OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRA CH July 13, 1995 NRC-95-0079 Nuclear Operations Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555 DOCKET NUMBER PR 6 o PROPOSED RULE--=-==----
(60 FR l<toa?)
References:
- 1)
Fermi 2
Subject:
NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43
- 2)
Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements, 60 FR 19002, dated April 14, 1995 Detroit Edison Comments on the Proposed Rule for Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements The purpose of this letter is to submit Detroit Edison's comments on Reference 2, as follows:
Detroit Edison supports the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, Section IV.F. This revision will continue to provide a means for determining adequate assurance of emergency preparedness capabilities, and allow flexibility in scenario development for the off-year drills. Our only concern is that at some time in the future and contrary to the discussion in the proposed revision, the off-year drill will be designated as a demonstration of Severe Accident Management capabilities as was mentioned in the January 9, 1995 letter from William T. Russell, Director, NRR to William H. Rasin, NEI. We agree with the argument in the proposed revision that Information Notice 87-54 allows licensees to employ more realistic scenarios in their off-year exercise and that latitude should be extended to the proposed off-year drills.
-Au~ 1 8 1995 Acknowledged by card............................. ""
ur*
",1,.11ss1ot1 DO
- .: SECTION ufr I
CRETARY OF THE IS"ION me t Statisti<:s
USNRC July 13, 1995 NRC-95-0079 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Girija S. Shukla at (313) 586-4270.
cc: T. G. Colburn H. J.
Miller M. P. Phillips J.
F. Schmitt (NEI)
A Vegel Sincerely, Lynne S. Goodman Director, Nuclear Licensing
PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY HARRISBURG p~~~J~f~ANIA 17105 3321 DOCK ETED USNRC July 12, 1995 Mr. John c. Hoyle Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
- 95 JUL 17 P 3 :17 OFFICE OF SECRE TARY DOCKETING 8-~ SERVICE BRA 'CH DOCKET NUMBER Pl PROPOSED RULE 5 O (6DF~ /1_oo:J The following comments are provided regarding proposed rule:
Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements (Federal Register Vol. 60, NO. 72) and the Virginia Electric and Power Company petition for rulemaking (Docket No. PRM-50-58).
First, I will provide an extract from the comments provided to you in 1993 re: docket No. PRM-50-58 which remain valid:
"The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania supports the current rule and opposes the proposed change.
While the biennial exercise provides the opportunity for broad based state and local participation in exercising off-site plans and procedures, the annual graded utility exercises enhance the biennial exercise process by providing state liaison personnel, and utility counterparts, the opportunity to remain proficient.
A two year gap will lesse n proficiency.
Our recent experience (TMI Site Area Emergency, February 7, 1993) shows the valuable effects of exercises.
Exercises provide opportunities to test various scenario possibilities.
Although our load for power plant exercises is substantial, we nonetheless place a premium on preparedness and training.
County, state and utility emergency preparedness will degrade under a biennial schedule.
Mini-drills will not take the place of annual exercises as now constituted.
- Further, states have been encouraging more federal exercise participation by FEMA and NRC.
The proposed change cuts back on the opportunities to test current personnel and train new personnel.
With an aging reactor population and continued gaps/deficiencies as noted by NRC in their own post TMI (February 7,
1993) report relative to inspections and program standards, we do not believe it effective for the NRC to consider this petition.
In the interest of public health and safety and the reasonable assurance thereof, we request that the current rule not be changed."
Acknowledged by card AUG 1 B 1995.___
u.~. * 'C -
- P. ~-"~,:..;.,* 1 JRY c0MMtss10 DO"'..
_. ~ ' :-11 }ICE ::ECTION on=,..,c C,F Tl-'t SECliETARY OF THE COMMISSION
()ocUme,t Statistie'S Postma Date J / JL//q 5 Cop,es Received _ __..,,7 _ ___ _
1 c \\ Copies Reproduced ---=-"'~--
an
As a further point to the Federal Register notice, a lack of clarity exists regarding State and local participation in the exercises and drills that are proposed to replace the annual NRC graded exercise.
On page 19002, licensees are charged to "enable" States and local governments to participate in these exercises and drills, but on page 19006, activating all response facilities (TSC, OSC and EOF) is not necessary.
Since States and local governments coordinate interaction through the EOF and Media Centers clarification is required.
For example, perhaps the utility would be charged with exercising the EOF and Media Centers as a part of at least one exercise and/or drill each year.
Sincerely, c~..,, s-~~
Charles F. WynneC__J Director CFW/ARS/dby cc:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I Federal Emergency Management Agency Region III Bureau of Radiation Protection Bureau of Operations, PEMA Bureau of Training and Education, PEMA
Duquesne l..ig1t Company GEORGES. THOMAS Division Vice President Nuclear Services Nuclear Power Division Beaver Valley Power Station P.O. Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077-0004 (412) 393-5206 (412) 643-8069 FAX Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch July 11, 1995 DOCKETED USNRC
- gr; Jl 17 P 3 :20 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH
Subject:
Draft "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements" (60 FR 19002, April 14, 1995)
Request for Comments Duquesne Light Company (DLC) is responsible for the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2. DLC is submitting the comments below for consideration in response to the Nuclear Regulat01y Commission's (NRC) request published in the April 14, 1995, Federal Register.
The NRC requested comments on the draft "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements" to change the frequency of emergency planning exercises from annual to biennial, to maintain training and emergency preparedness capabilities during the 2 year interval and to preserve the oppo1tunities for state and local training.
DLC fully concurs with and supports the revision. The revision recognizes that Emergency Preparedness activities are continually conducted to maintain a state of readiness. This applies to both onsite and offsite capabilities, and includes training of emergency response personnel, plan reviews and updates, and equipment readiness. The evaluation of an "onsite only" exercise is only one of many indicators that can be used to provide reasonable assurance that effective actions can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public should an emergency occur.
Thank you for the opp01tunity to comment on this issue. If you have any questions concerning this submittal, please contact Mr. R. K. Brosi, Manager, Emergency Preparedness Department, (412) 393-5767.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Acknowfedged
.AUG 1 8 1995 y card................. ~....... ~....,.
U.S. NUCL!:rft HS)JLATOAY COMMISSIO~
DOC!<.E-Tll;G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postman< Date 1 LI t ! q5' Copies R ceived __ -"'------
M Copies Reproduced j =--- - ---
S ca D;s** bvtion !?'7Y>C P/Jfr.
I'-"'-~
/
iLJi ""'-yoch <
Northeast Utilities System Mr. John c. Hoyle, Acting Secretary
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 107 Selden Street, Berlin, CT 06037 Northeast Utilities Service Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 July 14, 1995 Docket Nos, 50-443 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 B15234 Re:
60FR19002 DOCKET NUMBER
~c "
':'OQPO ED RULE
?~~
(,o FR l&fCJa '-_)
Seabrook Station Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Comments on Proposed Rulemaking Emergency Preparedness Exercise Reguirements On April 14, 1995 (ll, the NRC published a proposed revision to the emergency planning regulations contained in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, that would reduce the frequency for conducting formal exercises of the licensee's onsi te emergency plan from annual to biennial.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO),
and North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) offer the following comments on behalf of the Haddam Neck Plant, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, and Seabrook Station, respectively.
We strongly support the proposed rule change in that conducting an NRC-evaluated onsite exercise every other year will provide increased flexibility to utilities to maintain preparedness during "off" years while potentially avoiding the costs of a full-scale onsite exercise.
Overall, the utility will still have the requirement to maintain preparedness between NRC evaluated biennial exercises.
However, this proposed rule does give the utility the ability to focus its resources on alternative means of maintaining that preparedness.
This flexibility could allow the use of more realistic drills of varying scope that would challenge specific aspects of the emergency preparedness program.
We believe that the proposed rule change has sufficient provisions to allow the aforementioned benefits to be realized without (1) 60 Federal Register 19002.
0S3422 REV. 1-94 A k I"'" d b ard Jr,r, -1 g
__ _t!JBL c now ouge y c...... ;~---~
L ___ _
.S. NUCLEAR REGUL,TORY COMMiSSIOt-.
DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO Po~a. De:*,:; F~Jvc;epy Jere[
Copies RCCSIVt:d ___
~ ----
Add'l Copies Reproduced _..3'------
Special Distribution ll;p1 ~I V7 fJ IL;
-JA&--c;Rc,b. t>V\\
E-M~; I o n 7/l~liK Or,ju,;c.c._{ t'~ -ra (}Slj wy fttr-1/} tJC..J
Mr. John c. Hoyle, Acting Secretary Bl5234/Page 2 July 14, 1995 reducing the effectiveness of emergency preparedness.
In this regard, the proposed rule change is consistent with our ongoing commitment to maintain highly trained and qualified emergency response organizations.
Additionally, the proposed rule change is consistent with ongoing NRC efforts to reduce regulatory burden and to move toward less prescriptive and more performance-oriented regulations.
These comments will be posted electronically to the U. S. NRC Information Server on the FedWorld Information Network.
Should you require any additional information, please contact Mr. w. E. Hutchins at (203) 665-3718.
cc:
T. T.
A. w.
A. B.
J. w.
G. s.
- v. L.
J. B.
- w. J.
P. D.
Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY J. F. 0 Executive Vice President Martin, Region I Administrator De Agazio, NRC Project Manager, Seabrook Station Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant Andersen, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 Rooney, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 Macdonald, Senior Resident Inspector, Seabrook Station Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
)
NOTE TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 14, 1995 Emile Juli an Chief, Docketing and Services Branch Carol Gallagher
/1.. P L OP,;v..L,_y--/
~~-cf -
DOCKETING OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULE Attached is a comment letter related to the Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E relating to frequency of emergency planning exercises at nuclear power plants. This letter was received on our electronic bulletin board on 7/14/95 at 12:20 p.m.
The user logged on at the time of receipt of the comment was William Hutchins, Northeast Utilities (202) 665-3718.
I understand that Mr. Hutchins was also sending a hard copy to SECY for docketing; therefore, please docket his comment only once.
Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Michael Jamgochian (M/S T9-F31) for his records.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
M. Jamgochian
J On April 14, 19951, the NRC published a proposed rev1s1on to the emergency planning regulations contained in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, that would reduce the frequency for conducting formal exercises of the licensees onsite emergency plan from annual to biennial. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO),
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), and North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) offer the following comments on behalf of the Haddam Neck Plant, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, and Seabrook Station, respectively.
These comments have been officially docketed via the NRC Document control Desk and are place here for information only.
We strongly support the proposed rule change in that conducting an NRCevaluated onsite exercise every other year will provide increased flexibility to utilities to maintain preparedness during off years while potentially avoiding the costs of a fullscale onsite exercise.
Overall, the utility will still have the requirement to maintain preparedness between NRC evaluated biennial exercises.
However, this proposed rule does give the utility the ability to focus its resources on alternative means of maintaining that preparedness.
This flexibility could allow the use of more realistic drills of varying scope that would challenge specific aspects of the emergency preparedness program.
We believe that the proposed rule change has sufficient provisions to allow the aforementioned benefits to be realized without reducing the effectiveness of emergency preparedness.
In this regard, the proposed rule change is consistent with our ongoingcommitment to maintain highly trained and qualified emergency response organizations.
Additionally, the proposed rule change is consistent with ongoing NRC efforts to reduce regulatory burden and to move toward less prescriptive and more performanceoriented regulations.
Should you require any additional information, please contact Mr. W. E. Hutchins at (203) 6653718 or E-Mail at billh@nl.nu.com.
"Z"Z"Z"Z"Z 00 0-rt
~
(")-rt
,.,, ("")
C)
--trr, CD-o F=
co
- oz.,,
(/)("")
):>C'> C./) -
- z:::,::
- z: p,o f'T1
-J
- Ori, 0
C'")-i
- r: (./) 0 ri, rr, :::o
- e 0
- u rr,
< ~
c::,
Ll n ::o rn -<
Florida Power & Light Com~)'£~trrc:J 4000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 @
USNRC Mr. J. C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch II tJr!f
- 95 JUL.J1 P 3 : l 6 J U L 1 0 1995 OFFICE OF SECRETAR Y DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH L-95-199 c:..,KET NUMBER PR 5 0
'):--:0~0 ED RULE...::.....;;___:_ __ _
(t6 FR J qoo;J
Subject:
Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements (60 FR 19002, April 14, 1995)
Reguest for Comments On April 14, 1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for public comment a proposed rule, "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements. " These comments are submitted on behalf of Florida Power & Light (FPL), a licensed operator of two nuclear power plant units in Dade County, Florida and two units in St. Lucie County, Florida.
FPL supports the proposed rule change to 10 CPR Part 50, Appendix E.
FPL points out, however, that the NRC should consider a revision to their emergency preparedness inspection procedures. These procedures are used by regional inspectors as a mechanism for evaluating a licensee's ability to demonstrate implementation of all the major portions of their emergency preparedness program over a 6 year period (NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Nuclear Power Programs, Exercises and Drills, N.l.b.). Historically, this demonstration involved the observation of the licensee's annual emergency preparedness exercise by NRC inspectors. This will no longer be practical since a number of these demonstrations will most likely occur during the off year drills and exercises. The NRC should consider modifications to their inspection procedures allowing a licensee to perform its own self evaluation and critique against the criteria for preparation and evaluation of emergency response plans.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.
Very truly yours,
<t).Gf\\. ~a~~~.
~6\\ W. H. Bohlke Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Licensing WHB/st an FPL Group company mr, 1 a* 1995.,
?j.n/ '.................. ~............,..............
.S. NuC'.. *..,, ':..,G;_ 0,lORY COMMISSIOl'-4 oo~,::. i1f*H, g SERVICE SECTION Off, 'i: OF fHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postm rt(Date - ~ l-'-'1)--"--'-_cr_~ __
opies Received ___ ~/ ___ _
Ad Coptes Reproduced --',-----:,---
Spsc1al Dtstnbution }f;:L JO~ PfJ(s,
'J~
C,
July 10, 1995 Mr. John C. Hoyle Secretary DOCKETED USNRC NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
. v,. E" R' IC
,.. PROTECTION, EMERGENCY DOCKET I l G {~.5 *. V 1 ';::_ PREPAREDNESS, & WASTE BR,l\\ H C H REGULATION DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 5 0 (60 FR. !C/OO'L)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
Docketing and Service Branch Draft "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements" (60 Fed. Reg. 19002, April 14, 1995)
The Nuclear Energy Institute(NEI)l, on behalf of the nuclear industry, has reviewed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule "Production and Utilization Facilities, Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements," (60 Fed. Reg. 19002, April 14, 1995) and offers the following comments.
The industry strongly supports the proposed rulemaking to amend NRC's current regulations (Appendix E to Part 50,Section IV. Content of Emergency Plans, and F.
Training) to change the frequency of required emergency planning exercises to biennial instead of annual. This proposed rule amendment supports the National Performance Review process (NPR), in that it is consistent with ongoing efforts to eliminate requirements marginal to safety, to reduce regulatory burden, and to move toward less prescriptive and more performance oriented regulations.
The nuclear power industry has demonstrated a record of commitment and performance to establish and maintain emergency preparedness programs that 1 NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI' s members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry.
(ij)
Acknowlad ed b rd AUG 1 8 19951 --
g y ca...........,... """'"~n,i, l 77() I STREET, r'.JVV SUITE 400 WA<_,rllNGTOf'-J rJ(
/0006-J7!lH fAX :102 785,j(li')
rlJ.S. 'UC'LE* "-: :'-:*,....,OlW COMMISSION DO-:-' E 7,,-,,..*,,_ -5ERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmar1( Date Hu..J de.I, ~-- r:e./:
Copies Received __ --'-/ ____ _
McJ'I Copies Reprodl£8d 3 Sp,3c1al Distribution JtI l/)...,_;--P.-:-:--1/)-=--~,....- -..,.._~
~
i"J,---9 C)Gb {0h
Mr. John C. Hoyle July 10, 1995 Page 2 provide adequate protection of public health and safety. The industry remains committed to ensure adequate emergency organization response capability and readiness are available, regardless of how often exercises are conducted. Adoption of the proposed rule will result in a substantial reduction in cost and resource expenditure for licensees and NRC without reducing the effectiveness of emergency preparedness.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking and encourage implementation in a timely manner. If you have any question regarding the industry's response, please call Alan Nelson at (202) 739-8110 or me at (202) 739-8108.
~to~
John F. Schmitt JFS/APN:amw c:
Mr. Michael T. Jamgochian
N T NIAGARA UMOHAWK DOCKETED NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER coRPORATION/NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION. Po Y~FkcoM1NG. N v 13093fTEL. (315) 349-2660 FAX (315) 349-2605 MARTIN J. McCORMICK JR. P.E.
Vice President Nuclear Safety Assessment and Support June 30, 1995 NMPll 0961 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555
°95 JUL -5 P 4 :21 OFFICE OF SECRE TARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH DOCKET NUMBER po PROPOSED RULE II 5 0
({,OFR l&fCJo1/
SUBJECT:
Proposed rule change to 10CFR, Part 50, as described in the Federal Register, Volume 60, Number 72, dated April 14, 1995
Dear Sir:
As the licensee of the Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 in New York State, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) supports this proposed rule change as being a cost effective way to evaluate the readiness of our emergency response capability.
Accordingly, NMPC concurs with all aspects of the proposed change, and recommends that the change be adopted.
We appreciate your consideration of our position in this matter.
Very truly yours,
~J~c~fh:JJ--
Vice President Nuclear Safety Assessment & Support
/sis AUG 1 8 1995 Acknowledged by card.................. :.~:........ :**
.. NUC!..[ c..:1 [-<\\:.<* 0: ** -, ~ i"1Y i.,:Jiv1!v'iiSSiOI\\
QOCr'.~i t*iG ~- : E.RV1CE -..£CTION OFFICE OF 1HE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics ostma~ Date --2~}-"'3__,,/__L..,...L---
Co~es Rece1ved ___
-Cc L _
Add'l Copies Reproduced....:j~ ----
Special o,str:oonon fl:t-Oy P(),Z J ~
0 e, b, I c,.,V'.
1UELECTRIC C. Lance Terry Group Vice President, Nuclear Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Log # TXX-95170 File # 10013 June 29. 1995
- 95 Jill -3 P4 :03 OFFICE OF SECRET'\\RY DOCKET/ G & SFRVICE RRANc/i
~~~rs~~~~~ Pl so
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 1.6 0 F o / </00 J_ J PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES:
\\. 4 1'
- J EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS REF:
Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 72, p. 19002 April 14, 1995
Dear Sirs:
With respect to the referenced Federal Register notice, TU Electric supports the proposed rule clarification to revise emergency planning regulations to require a biennial exercise (with drill(s) in the "off.
year") instead of the current practice of conducting an exercise annually.
Consistently good response performance during exercises. as a result of the "maturing" of a licensees emergency preparedness program. should result in a biennial requirement to be consistent with other performance based inspection approaches already approved and being considered by the NRC in other areas.
A biennial exercise requirement is more in-line with the state/local government periodicity requirements which have been shown to be satisfactory.
Participation of the state/local governments. upon their request during the "off-year" drills, will enable enhancement of their abilities (participation based on past performance. personnel/programmatic changes, etc.).
The use of less severe events. particularly in the "off-year" drill(s)
(reference IN 87-54), will result in a less elaborate (costly) scenario.
and provide positive reinforcement via success paths and practice for the more likely emergency situations that may actually occur.
The improvements in licensee SALP ratings, automation of dose projections (RASCAL) and data transfer (EROS, SPDS) are evidence of a lesser need for an annual exercise.
- A1m 1 i* 1995~
Acknowledged by card.. "N611meeeeeewtttll!.Jou Energy Plaza 1601 Bryan Street Dallas, Texas 75201-3411
.s. NUCt (... *.-.~*;.JLAT:....*,w Cu\\'it.,1:ssIot-;
DOC:l\\tT: C' e. ~-rnVICE SECTION OFF,*;E OF I rlE SECRETARY OF iHE COMMISSION Document Statistics ostmant Date 6/;J tJ /o/5" Copies Received I
hi <fl Copies Reproduced _:]_
-=------
Spacial Distribution lrlP)./ /JrJ{?
. :Un.~9ovh,--.....,
TXX-95170 Page 2 of 2 In conclusion, as only one of many indicators, the biennial exercise/"off year" drill requirements are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of public health and safety.
TU Electric supports this clarification of the regulations.
CLW/grp Sincerely, c.~1_ _
By ~
~
J. S. Marshall Generic Licensing Manager
II I
Duke Power Company P.O. Box 1006 DOCKETED USNRC M. S. TUCKMAN Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation (704)382-2200 Office (704)382-4360 Fax Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 DUKEPOWER "9.5 JJl -3 P4 :10 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH (j)
June 27, 1995 DOCKET NUMBER PR r O p *,oPOSED RULE~-=?J~ --
Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn.: Docketing and Service Branch
( 60 FR /e,c;a,2)
Subject:
Proposed Rule, "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements," 60 FR 19002, April 14, 1995 Duke Power Company would like to offer the following comments on the Proposed Rule, "Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements," 60 FR 19002, April 14, 1995.
Duke Power supports the rule change. It emphasizes the training aspect of drills, by allowing for supervised instruction. Not requiring scenarios to progress to core damage and permitting success paths increases realism, and encourages personnel to think about more probable accidents and accident mitigation. The increased flexibility will allow utilities to focus resources where performance problems exist.
Yours truly, y\\,~. '\\~
M. S. Tuckman MST/E.MK/d:\\tina\\nrcprex.doc Printed on recycled paper AUG 1 8" 1995-Acknowfooged by card..........................,.,..m
t'~'-' EArf
._.__..Ju-.. \\.f, ro M.S510 ooc,::.TI,.. & SER II E SECTION OFFlCi: OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE CO MISSION DoctJment Statisbcs stm Date
/,__, / <;
Coples Received __
--"/ _
A Co
- s Reproduced -.:J'--__,- ~ -
Spec,": Distribution flt:- II)<;, Pow;_
Jfhrw'j~I ~,;, ----
DOCKET NUMBER pa 5 PROPOSED RULE R
O (boF~ J'f,Oo2.)
DOCKETED USNRC Tennessee Valley Authority. 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 June 15, 1995 Mr. John C. Hoyle, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
- gr_; JJN 22 P 4 :18 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) -
REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING 10 CFR PART 50, EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has reviewed the subject proposed rulemaking published in the April 14, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 19002-19007) and fully supports its implementation.
This rulemaking will allow us more flexibility in how we conduct our emergency planning drills and exercise program and will be more consistent with the exercise requirements imposed on the state and local governments.
Furthermore, it is TVA's strong belief that it can maintain a high level of emergency response capability under the provisions of the proposed rule.
TVA appreciates this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, f~ierV.l.~:..£..--c,..,,
Manager Corporate Licensing cc:
Mr. Michael T. Jamgochian regulation Development Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John F. Schmitt Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 rd Acknowledged by ca........................
U.S. N-.
v;,:,vilS:::ilOr-.
DO,.,
- .:i*~-f SECTION Cff,,,. *,,* i '-!t. SECRETARY OF 1HE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmari< Date 6 [i,-Jft{
Copies Received L
Ad~ICopiesRep-rod-uced----,5..------
Special Distribution Yl,.'r ~ J < fjJf/ f 1 ot., yl,\\._'J a c.)u ~ "'-
DOCKETED USNRC Texas Department of He~ltltfJ 21 P2 :s2 (f)
David R. Smith, M.D.
Commissioner 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3189 (512) 458-7111 OFFlCftt 1 ~~..lAAiels DOCKE D
mmisl~
i'ffor Programs
~
- SERVICE June 20, 1995 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Reference Proposed Rule SP-95-066
Dear Sir:
Radiation Control (512) 834-6688 tte; ilN8. '.gan Deputy Commissioner for Administration DOCKEi UMBER PROPOSED RULE Pl j [)
( 60 FR. 190~:Jd The Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, is the lead offsite agency for radiological emergency response within the state of Texas. As such, we are very sensitive to any proposal potentially affecting emergency response capability, either onsite or off.
In general, the Bureau supports the proposed changes to Appendix E to Part 50. We feel that relevant capabilities can be adequately maintained through other means; but we are not entirely convinced that such would always be the case. Rather than eliminating any requirements, we suggest that each site initially be granted a waiver for off-year integrated exercises; with said waiver to continue in effect only for so long as an acceptable level of emergency response capability is maintained.
If off-year integrated ex~rcises are so onerous to the Licensees, then continued eligibility for the suggested waiver might provide a powerful incentive which would be lost if the present requirement were simply to be cancelled.
Sincerely, Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control
'JOr O 3 1995
- Acknowfedged by card....... :....................,.... 11 An Equal Employment Opponunity Employer
r-----
I
- ' : -... coMMiSSiOt-1
- ;.., 1!:E SECTION
- t. SECRETARY v i ~i.: COMMISSION Dl:Mlment StatisOCS foj1man; Dare f._rpv, ~
,Ly &A.-1 Jlt/1-~
Co~es o,ce,,cd_ i Md'I Cl)p*cs Reprodt.~
special o,,m~;nn _3/4t:. i /I{} 12- =
~ '/4,~*m, ~
June 20, 1995 NOTE TO:
Emile Juli an FROM:
Chief, Docketing and Servp;;;r
- ces Branch Carol Gallagher (\\ Aul,
RES, ORA
(_;{,Uu'-"
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULE Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E relating to frequency of emergency planning exercises at nuclear power plants. This letter was received on our electronic bulletin board on 6/20/95 at 8:43 a.m.
The user logged on at the time of receipt of the comment was Joseph Thiel, Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control (512) 834-6688.
Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Michael Jamgochian (M/S T9-F31) and James Myers (M/S03-023) for their records.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
M. Jamgochian J. Myers
(j)
.,-<;~:
s DEPARTM
. IU~ETY 10.
E SPRI :
'l'iOA
~w tS P 4 :13 Jim Edgar Governor Thomas W. Ortciger OF SECRETARYDirector Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch June 9, 1995 ET! G & SERVICE BRANCH DOCKET NUMBEli D fi PROPOSED RULE Pn 0
{ho r-- 1<- J CJ 001--)
RE:
Proposed Rule Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements (SP-95-066)
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) hereby submits its comments regarding the above-referenced document. IDNS is the lead agency in Illinois, in cooperation with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, for preparing emergency plans for, and coordinating emergency responses to, accidents at nuclear power plants.
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety was among those initially opposed to the Virginia Electric Power Company petition that prompted this rule change, primarily due to what was perceived as the potential for a diminution of emergency preparedness capability on the part of licensees. However, the Department acknowledges that the compromise embodied in the Commission's proposed rule change does offer adequate assurance that ongoing licensee emergency preparedness activities will continue at a reasonable level.
Due to the number of licensees in Illinois and the capacity of the State's emergency response organizations, when appropriate, Illinois will invoke the language of the proposed rule change that requires licensees to involve "State or local governments within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the licensee's drills when requested by such State or local government."
At the same time, the Department notes with interest the summary conclusion with respect to the flexibility that the Commission views as one result of the substitution of annual drills and biennial exercises for annual exercises. The
@ recyclable JUN 2 0 199r' -
~r.knl'\\w1Atlnt!r, hv eafd.... -"-""'"'"'"-
U.S. NU,:. *
.-*~,_:,7 ORY COMMISSIOt-.
DOt'" *
~ :-
S'=RVICE SECTION Or "'t: vF THE SECRETARY UF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 6 / z -i-l q 5 Cop*es R ceiVJd ___
~
1 C ~ '~ Rep 'Xi... <:ed J
.:)',11bu.on )f;I.,95j
- -=-,-f!-'()--.1s.--* -
.Jp-rrq b C, h @ br
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 June 9, 1995 Commission observes that with annual drills, "greater flexibility in the training of the onsite emergency response organization could provide significant benefits to some licensees" and that "licensees would have greater opportunity to conduct realistic emergency response training with supervised instruction that allowed operatin~staff to consider accident management strategies, diagnose problems and be given credit for actions that would mitigate scenario events."
The Department strongly suggests that the Commission adopt a similar philosophy with respect to FEMA's evaluation of offsite graded exercises. As VEPCo' s petition argues, "the graded exercise has, in effect, become an end unto itself." If the Commission agrees that for licensees the annual graded exercises may no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally intended, then consideration should be given to modifying the requirements for offsite exercise scenarios that currently mandate core damage accidents and substantial releases to force widespread public protective actions. Such scenarios are not always necessary to adequately demonstrate that offsite response organizations can protect public health and safety.
Greater flexibility can benefit offsite as well as onsite emergency response organizations.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Roy Wight of my staff.
TWO:bdc cc:
Doug Scott, ComEd Mike Lyon, Illinois Power Jana F airow, IEMA Larry Bailey, FEMA V Director Dennis Kwiatkowski, FEMA Headquarters John Martin, NRC Region III
STATE OF CALIFOR.'ilA PETE WILSON, Govemor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES 2800 Ml:ADOWVIEW ROAD DOCKETED SACRAME!'IITO, CALIFORNIA 95832 usu Re Secretary Docketing and Seivice Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Bangart:
(916) 262-1800 n
FAX: 262-1677 May 30, 1995
°95 JJN -7 A11 :16 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH DOCKET NUMBER I l"t""POSED RULE p f 0 (to FYc. Jioo2..)
We have no comments on the proposed rule changing the licensee onsite exercise frequency from annual to biennial.
OES jiii*
Thank you for including the State of California in the review process. If you have any questions, please call Benjamin Tong, Radiological Preparedness Unit, at (916) 262-1738.
cc: Richard Andrews, Director, OES Sincerely, I ne Hindmarsh Chief Planning and Technoiogical Assistance Branch JUN 2 0 1995*
Acknowledged bv cam................... ~:.::::::;;
. ~'l.!CL. *.
/,* C.OlvlMISSIOt--.
ooci,::*. '*.;, t t:~ nVICE SECTION OFFIC,E. OF THE SECRETARY OF rHE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postman< Date b / 2. / <i S Ccpies Received ____
Add'I Copies Reproduced _..].__ ___
Spec,ai Disti!bution f2;t KJ ~ P fl fl..
J,?.~t,ch.. l a.t'Y
~
May 22, 1995 LIC-95-0106 Omana Public Power District 444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha. Nebraska 68102-2247 402/636-2000
'95 l1AY Jo A11 :23 OFFICE OF SE DOCKETIUG & iiETA.RY BRANCH RVICE Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE
~ ()
( 6 o FI{ J 'f (:?O::J-)
Docket No. 50-285
References:
- 1.
- 2.
Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 72, 60 FR 19002
SUBJECT:
Comments on Proposed Rule Revising Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), the owner/operator of Fort Calhoun Station, fully supports the referenced proposed rul emaking which changes the frequency requirements for the subject exercises from annual to biennial.
OPPD agrees that this proposal will provide licensee flexibility in choosing the activities that are to be conducted in the 2-year period between biennial full-participation exercises.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
- ,~t.~~7 Nuclear Operations 45 - 512 TLP/tcm c:
Winston & Strawn L. J. Callan, NRC Regional Administrator W. C. Walker, NRC Senior Resident Inspector T. Y. Liu, NRC Acting Project Manager Document Control Desk "JJ1f 2 O' 1995
- A"~"'*"Nf,,et'f,,., "'"'"'
- ..ai......... "****.,.******* ****,.,
Employment with Equal Opportunity
IJ.S. NU Ct r: ~..... rr -., L/1 TORY COMMISSIO~
DOCi<l:::Ti,~G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postma~ Date S b..5 / i 5 Copies Received _________ _
Adcfl Copies Reproduced -~._.. _ _ _
Spegal Dislribution.....:ir;;i:~Pf
.:.,.......a~.._-
µ ~ J" c,b ( ~ f'x
9 May 1995 Secretary, USNRC Washington DC 20555 Asheville Office: 29 1/2 Page Ave.
- Asheville, NC 28801
- 704-251 -0518 Raleigh Office: P.O.Box 1008
- Raleigh, NC 27602
- 919-832-7491 co g~
~
~-
rrln
~
rrl a>-o
- oz-,,
l> c., (/) -
V1
% lc'O,.,.,
~u,n rr,:::O
~
- Orr\\
N
<~
- o*
The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina opposes the proposed rule, ~
d
\\0 Friday, 14 April 1995 at 60 FR 19002ff, to reduce emergency plan exercise requirements from annual to biennial exercises. The Fund considers that persons who would be likely to be affected by power-plant related emergencies are entitled to the most stringent protection imaginable. The Fund notes that, in order to provide this protection, emergency response teams must repond in a practiced and effective manner in the event of actual emergencies and is therefore concerned by the proposal to reduce exercises to half of the present rate.
In addition, the Fund is deeply concerned by the Commission's failure to adequately address issues raised by citizen opponents and the Federal Emergency Management Authority. The Commission does not appear, for example, to have addressed the quantitative question about expected turnover rates that would be important to determining whether biennial exercises could substantially reduce l09al team skills. Local government comments on the importance of regular exercises for improving coordination and communication similarly appear unaddressed. Similarly, the Commission has not addressed the FEMA concern that regular cooperation with offsite teams may play a critical role in their preparedness which may be especially important in view of the potential role such teams may play as first responders in actual emergencies.
The Fund therefore asks that the Commission withdraw the proposed rule. The Fund also express its hope that the Commission will, in future rulemakings, appropriately address critical issues, when such issues are raised (for example, during the public comment period).
Carl Rupert, Ph.D.
Raleigh Research Director The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina PO Box 1008 Raleigh NC 27602
'MA'f 2 2 1 M'lf.t on 1cm poll~,~
~
.adMd ~
w.ah tor....
I
('.
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOr.
DOCKETING & SERVICE-SECTION
- OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
.
- OF THE'COMMISSION DocumeAt.Statislics Postmart( Date....... :....a...: ______.,...___
CopesRecoive --,--,-~--............ --
Mc!I co*pl
- Re s...
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY
DOCKET NUMBER p PROPOSED RULE..!-!!~...... -
( ~t=R. \\ C\\ooa; P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50
- 95 APR 10 A ~
1 :48 RIN:
3150-AF20 OF FI C!
t OOCKr.1',
bfi Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and Preparedness Exercise Requirements Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to revise its emergency planning regulations.
The proposed rule would amend the current regulations governing domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, as necessary, to facilitate greater flexibility in the licensee's emergency preparedness training activities during the "off-year" for implementing the current requirement for annual exercise of the onsite emergency plan which is conducted to evaluate major portions of licensees' emergency response capabilities. The proposed amendment would preserve the existing requirement that each licensee, at each site, exercise biennially with full participation by States and local governments within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ); would reduce from annual to biennial the required frequency of exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan (which may be included in the biennial full participation exercise);
would require licensees to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained during the interval between biennial exercises by
2 conducting drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities; and would require licensees to continue enabling State and local governments in plume exposure pathway EPZs to participate in exercises and in drills in the interval between the biennial full participation exercises.
By undertaking this rulemaking, the Commission would grant, in part, a petition for rulemaking submitted by Virginia Electric Power Company on December 9, 1992.
DATES:
~
\\'& I \\9C\\S' The comment period expires ~90 da.)s a~l katio11 in Hie Federa-t RegisteP).
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: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level},
Washington, DC.
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld.
The bulletin board may be accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly available communications software packages, or directly via Internet.
Background documents on the
3 rulemaking are also available, as practical, for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board.
If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll free number (800) 303-9672.
Communication software parameters should be set as follows:
parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to I (N,8,1).
Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem can then be accessed by selecting the "Rules Menu" option from the "NRC Main Menu."
Users will find the "FedWorld Online User's Guides" particularly helpful.
Many NRC subsystems and data bases also have a "Help/Information Center" option that is tailored to the particular subsystem.
The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can also be accessed by a direct dial phone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339, or by using Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov.
If using (703) 321-3339 to contact FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld menu by selecting the "Regulatory, Government Administration and State Systems," then selecting "Regulatory Information Mall."
At that point, a menu will be displayed that has an option "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" that will take you to the NRC Online main menu.
The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing "/go nrc" at a FedWorld command line.
If you access NRC from FedWorld's main menu, you may return to FedWorld by selecting the "Return to FedWorld" option from the NRC Online Main Menu.
However, if you access NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the main FedWorld system.
If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and menus, including the Rules Menu.
Although you will be able to download
4 documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or upload files (comments).
If you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files can be accessed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look).
An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with descriptions, is available.
There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP access.
Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web, like FTP that mode only provides access for downloading files and does not display the NRC Rules Menu.
For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail AXD3@nrc.gov.
Single copies of this proposed rulemaking may be obtained by written request or telefax ((301) 415-2260) from:
Distribution Services, Printing and Mail Services Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555.
Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
These same documents may also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established by NRC for this rulemaking as indicated above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael T. Jamgochian, Regulation Development Brnach, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852 (301-415-6534).
5 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Virginia Electric Power Company.
The petition was assigned Docket No. PRM 50-58 on December 16, 1992.
The petitioner has requested that the NRC amend Appendix E,Section IV, F.2., to 10 CFR Part 50, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities," to change the requirement that each site exercise its emergency plan biennially rather than annually.
The petitioner's proposed amendment would require each licensee to conduct a biennial integrated exercise of the emergency plan at each site and to take actions necessary to ensure that its emergency response capability is maintained during the 2-year interval.
The petitioner believes that the annual graded exercise is but one of many indicators designed to provide e
reasonable assurance that actions can and will be taken during an emergency situation that will provide for the health and safety of the public.
The petitioner quotes 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, F.2.,
which states that "each licensee at each site shall annually exercise its emergency plan. 111 The petitioner contends that although not explicitly defined in the rule, this statement has been interpreted throughout the industry to require that each licensee at each site annually conduct an integrated exercise which will be evaluated by the NRC.
1This quote does not reflect changes to the regulations that were made on March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14087), when the ~ord "onsite" was added before the words "emergency plan."
6 The petitioner states that regulations governing the frequency of State and local emergency planning exercises have been in place since 1984.
These regulations require a biennial exercise of State and local emergency plans.
Therefore, the petitioner contends that the requirement for an annual integrated exercise for the onsite organization is inconsistent and should be clarified.
The petitioner contends that emergency preparedness programs throughout the industry are designed to achieve and maintain an adequate level of emergency response capability.
As defined by NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-l, Rev. 1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," a joint Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Federal Emergency Management Agency {NRC/FEMA) report published in November 1980, 2 an exercise is an event that tests the integrated capability and major portions of the basic elements existing within emergency preparedness plans and organizations.
The petitioner contends, therefore, that an exercise is designed to merely confirm the level of response.
As confirmation, an annual exercise is not necessary to achieve the underlying intent of the rule which is to attain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness.
The petitioner further contends that because the annual exercise is the primary mechanism presently used by the NRC to evaluate readiness, the resources dedicated to this event are naturally more focused on exercise performance than on emergency preparedness.
The petitioner states 2Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328.
Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
A copy is also available for inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
7 that because of the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program, the annual graded exercise merely represents a separate means for the NRC to evaluate the licensee's performance.
The petitioner believes that the graded exercise has, in effect, become an end unto itself.
The petitioner contends that the response of offsite response organizations during exercises performed over the past 8 years has demonstrated that a biennial frequency is sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the health and safety of the public.
During this time, there has been no indication of a need to increase the frequency of the demonstration.
The petitioner states further that although it is recognized that the Commission retained the annual frequency requirement for licensees when it amended its regulations in 1984 to allow State and local governments to participate in emergency preparedness exercises every 2 years, the request to amend 10 CFR part 50 is implicitly supported by another part of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The petitioner contends that regulations issued by FEMA at 44 CFR 350.9, by virtue of their stated requirements for offsite response organizations, recognize that, within the context of those regulations, the biennial conduct of an exercise is sufficient to demonstrate that protective measures can be taken in the event of an accident, thereby providing reasonable assurance of the health and safety of the public.
The petitioner further contends that provisions for giving the States and local response organizations the opportunity to participate in the licensee's drill and exercise program could be easily accommodated independent of the petitioner's proposed rule change.
The petitioner contends that technological advancements and applications have served to greatly enhance and automate accident assessment activities
8 employed during an emergency response for both the licensee (through the use of Safety Parameter Display System and dose assessment computer models) and the Federal Government (through the use of the Emergency Response Data System and RASCAL, a computer dose assessment model).
Improvements to equipment and facilities and programmatic enhancements within the nuclear emergency preparedness discipline over the past decade have elevated the level of response capability throughout the industry.
As evidence, the petitioner refers to the results of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program, a mechanism employed by the NRC to assess, among other things, emergency preparedness indicators.
The petitioner indicates that during the period between 1980 and 1992, the industry-averaged SALP rating for emergency preparedness improved from 2.29 to 1.26.
The overall average for emergency preparedness SALP ratings for this 12-year period is 1.61.
The Petitioner The petitioner is a U.S. commercial nuclear power reactor licensee for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The petitioner states that emergency planning regulations, promulgated as a result of the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, govern virtually all aspects of a licensee's emergency preparedness program and that they have done much to lay the basis for a structured formal response capability. The petitioner further states that maintenance and verification of emergency response capability are accomplished through the programs that ensure adequacy and effectiveness of plans, procedures, facilities, equipment, response personnel, and performance demonstrations.
The petitioner focuses the
9 petition on the need to conduct an annual exercise to ensure the adequacy of the emergency response capability.
The petition is based on the petitioner's belief that the annual exercise is only one of many indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can and will be taken during an emergency situation that will protect the health and safety of the public.
The petitioner believes that the proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 50 would do nothing to undermine the provisions already in place for ensuring that identified deficiencies resulting from the conduct of exercise are corrected.
Need for the Suggested Amendments The petitioner contends the current annual testing requirement of a licensee's emergency response capability exceeds the threshold needed for determining the adequacy of the level of response.
Therefore, the adoption of a biennial demonstration frequency would allow an increase in cost efficiency for industry and the Federal Government.
Emergency preparedness exercises conducted in 1990 and 1991 have averaged a total of approximately $20,000 per inspection in NRC fees for the Virginia Electric and Power Company.
The petitioner estimates that each exercise costs approximately $200,000 in resource commitments for the company.
The approximately 450 personnel required for each exercise could be more effectively utilized in their normal function rather than by participating in an unneeded test of response capability.
Furthermore, the petitioner states that, based on experience, approximately 750 staff hours are expended during the development of an
10 exercise scenario.
Emergency planning resources, therefore, could be more effectively applied to the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness activities rather than being absorbed by exercise demonstration activities, such as exercise scenario development, controller organization preparations, organization impacts and facility availability (e.g., control room simulator time}.
The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety.
The Petitioner's Suggested Solution The petitioner requests the NRC amend its regulations governing domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, as necessary, to require that each licensee exercise its emergency plan for each site biennially rather than annually and to otherwise ensure that its emergency response capability is maintained during the 2-year interval.
The petitioner requests that the NRC modify the existing regulation to provide greater clarification by explicitly defining the requirement.
The Petitioner's Suggested Amendments Petitioner requests that the NRC:
- 1.
Amend Section IV, Paragraph F.2., of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to read as follows:
"Each licensee at each site shall conduct an integrated exercise
11 every 2 years.
The licensee shall take actions necessary to ensure the emergency response capabilities are maintained during the 2-year interval."
- 2.
Amend Section IV, Paragraph F.3.(f), of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 to read as follows:
"Licensees shall enable any State or local government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in exercises when requested by such State or local government."
- 3.
Revise Section IV, Paragraph F.2., of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 to provide greater clarification regardless of any action taken to amend the existing rule.
Although not explicitly defined in the regulation, it has been interpreted throughout the industry that the regulation requires each licensee to annually conduct an integrated exercise at each site that will be evaluated by the NRC.
Public Comments 9
A notice of filing of the petition, Docket No. PRM-50-58, was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1993 (41 FR 12341).
Public comments were requested by May 3, 1993.
A total of 32 comment letters were received, of which 17 utilities, 5 State emergency management agencies and NUMARC supported the petition; while 7 State emergency management agencies, FEMA, and an environmental group opposed the petition.
Support of the petition for rulemaking could generally be characterized by the following public comments:
"... an annual, graded NRC exercise is but one of many indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can be taken
12 in the case of an emergency that are effective to protect the health and safety of the public."
"Power reactor licensee effectiveness in emergency planning has improved steadily to the point where annual observed exercises no longer provide a significant benefit let alone a benefit commen-surate with their cost in dollars and diverted resources."
"Based on plant management's commitment to emergency prepared-ness... it is believed that biennial exercising is a sufficient frequency for determining the adequacy of a licensee's level of performance.
It is well realized that a licensee cannot ignore emergency preparedness for 20 months and then train and fix facilities and procedures within 4 months in preparation for an exercise.
Emergency preparedness' complex infrastructure demands a continual evaluation and maintenance program.
Changing to biennial exercising should not lessen the high level of emergency preparedness... "
"As an alternate to NRC observation of an annual exercise to assess a licensee's response capability, the NRC can utilize the resident inspector during periodic drills to determine if the licensee's program is effective... Annual exercises are typically constructed to demonstrate everything... we are actually reinforcing the belief by State and local governments that every
13 emergency at a nuclear power plant will go to general emergency (required for most annual exercises)."
Opposition to the petition for rulemaking could also generally be characterized by the following public comments:
"... the exercise is not simply an indicator for NRC evaluation of the level of emergency preparedness, but also serves as training and practice for maintaining skills... There may be sufficient turnover or reassignment of plant personnel that two yedrs between exercises is too long."
"Currently, many nuclear utilities are going through a period of
'streamlining' their organizations... there will be changes in utility personnel with assignments as accident responders.
A two-year integrated emergency exercise will not allow personnel sufficient training in a new role."
"Regardless of the individual and collective levels of proficiency or technical sophistication, we still find exercises useful in identifying planning, training, or resource needs.
In the past, we have often used utility-only and partial-scale exercises to train new personnel, test new facilities, or strengthen our relationship with our nuclear utilities and other agencies.
Given the importance of preparedness to overall nuclear safety, we do not believe that annual utility exercises pose an excessive
14 burden.
Relaxation of the current requirement is therefore not necessary and should be denied."
Additionally, FEMA's opposition to the petition in rulemaking focused on the following points:
The proposed relaxation of the annual exercise requirement to a biennial frequency should be carefully analyzed to address any diminution in preparedness that might occur either to onsite or offsite programs.
Our experience in the Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program over the last ten years has shown the great importance of the biennial, FEMA-graded, REP exercises in achieving meaningful, measurable preparedness for offsite jurisdictions around nuclear power plants.
However, although State and local emergency plans are meant to minimize health and safety risks to the public should a radiological accident affect offsite areas, the licensee's onsite emergency plans are designed not only to prevent a radiological accident from occurring, but to serve as the "first line of defense" to prevent the accident from posing offsite health and safety effects.
FEMA disagrees with VEPCO's characterization of the present annual onsite exercise requirement as being of marginal importance to safety. A licensee's onsite emergency preparedness is critical for protecting the public's health and safety, and we believe that the evaluation of a licensee's performance during annual onsite
15 exercises is the most effective way to measure the level of a licensee's preparedness to respond to an emergency situation.
Issues Raised by Petitioner The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety.
The petitioner has identified a number of issues associated with the current requirement to conduct an emergency plan exercise annually as grounds for change.
The issues presented by the petitioner are as follows:
(1)
The requirement to conduct an integrated annual exercise is not clearly defined.
Therefore the regulation should be clarified.
(2)
The existing regulation, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is inconsistent with other regulations that govern the frequency of offsite response organization integrated exercises (i.e., 44 CFR Part 350).
(3)
The performance of offsite response organizations during biennial exercises has confirmed that a biennial frequency is sufficient to provide the reasonable assurance finding.
(4)
The existing regulation, 10 CFR 50.54(t), provides for an independent review of the adequacy of program implementation.
(5)
The existing requirement to conduct an annual exercise is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. A biennial exercise is sufficient to provide an acceptable formal confirmation of capability.
lo (6)
Reconsideration of the requirement is warranted in light of the completion and implementation of enhanced emergency preparedness facilities, the current level of industry proficiency and performance, and the increased industry sensitivity to emergency preparedness.
(7)
Personnel could be more effectively utilized in their normal professional function rather than by participating in a resource-intensive integrated test that only serves to confirm the already existing level of the response capability.
(8)
Emergency planning resources could be more effectively utilized to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness activities.
Commission Response The Commission believes that it is important, in light of the discussion provided in the petition, to make clearer NRC's intent (under the existing rule) that licensees need not conduct annual exercises employing scenarios that progress to severe core damage and/or result in offsite releases.
Historically, these scenarios were used in both the biennial full participation exercise of off-site emergency plans and the annual exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan.
However, this is no longer necessary for the currently required annual exercises of the licensee's onsite emergency plan.
Information Notice (IN) 87-54, "Emergency Response Exercises," was issued to clarify NRC intent in this regard and to provide detailed guidance, specifically on the types of "off-year" training activities that licensees could perform during the interval between the biennial full participation exercises to maintain adequate EP response capabilities and satisfy the rule.
17 Some licensees have availed themselves of the flexibility afforded by the IN guidance to conduct realistic, interactive "off-year" training activities that simulate less severe events, such as a minor fire, loss of electric power, and equipment failure, and focus on the capability of the onsite emergency response organization to diagnose problems and develop actions to successfully mitigate the scenario event.
However, as noted in the petition, many licensees continue to employ severe scenarios in annual exercises of their onsite emergency plans.
Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to modify Section IV.F.2.b. of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, to reduce from annual to biennial the required frequency of exercise of the onsite emergency plan (which may be included in the biennial full participation exercise specified in IV.F.2.c.), and to require that licensees conduct training drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities, during the interval between biennial full participation exercises to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained.
The principal functional areas of emergency response include activities such as management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
This approach is consistent with a comment from one State that was not opposed to the petition but would prefer that some guidelines be included in Appendix E requiring plant specific internal exercises during the 'off year' to ensure plant personnel familiarity with their response plans rather than the vague expectancy that this activity will be done.
Furthermore, licensees would continue to enable State and local governments in the plume exposure
18 pathway EPZs to participate in drills in the interval between exercises, thus preserving their training opportunities.
In response to FEMA's opposition to this petition for rulemaking, the Commission notes that although the existing requirements relating to licensees' off-year EP activities are being modified (most noticeably by eliminating the need for a full formal exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan in the "off-years"), the Commission is confident that there is no diminution of preparedness or increase in risk to the public.
Licensees are specifically required under the proposed rule to maintain adequate emergency response capabilities between the biennial full participation exercises, and will now be conducting realistic drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities, during that interval. The principal functional areas of emergency response include activities such as management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes may result in the reallocation and more effective utilization of resources within some licensees' EP programs in order to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness capabilities during the "off-year" periods.
It is not clear, however, that these changes will result in significant overall cost savings. The Commission cautions specifically against expectations that the proposed changes will necessarily result in significant reductions in NRC inspection activity directed to observation and evaluation of licensees' off-year EP maintenance activities, because they may be modified under the new
19 rule.
Also, licensees will, upon request, submit scenarios for NRC review in support of future inspections as may be deemed necessary by NRC.
Summary After considering the arguments presented by the petitioners and evaluating all public comments received, and based on the further understanding of the issues involved gained from 13 years of experience evaluating licensee emergency preparedness exercises, the Commission concludes that:
(1)
The required frequency for full formal exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan should be reduced from annual to biennial; (2)
The means by which licensees are expected to train and maintain their emergency response capabilities and readiness in the 2-year interval between evaluated exercises should be changed by requiring licensees to conduct drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities; and (3)
Opportunities for training by State and local governments should be preserved.
The principal functional areas of emergency response include activities such as management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
During the specified drills, activation of all of the licensee's emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, and EOF) would not be necessary,
20 licensees would have the opportunity to consider accident management strategies, supervised instruction would be permitted, operating staff would have the opportunity to resolve problems (success paths) rather than have controllers intervene, and the drills could focus on onsite training objectives.
The proposed revisions would relieve licensees from the current requirement to conduct annually a full formal exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan, and make clear that licensees have flexibility in choosing the activities that are to be conducted in the 2-year period between biennial full-participation exercises in order to maintain their emergency response capabilities. Greater flexibility in the training of the onsite emergency response organization could provide significant benefits to some licensees.
For example, licensees could eliminate the practice of developing scenarios that proceed to severe core damage, offsite releases, or to higher emergency classification levels.
Licensees would have greater opportunity to conduct realistic emergency response training with supervised instruction that allowed the operating staff to consider accident management strategies, diagnose problems and be given credit for actions that would mitigate scenario events (e.g., "success paths").
This approach is also responsive to comments from FEMA, some States, and others who expressed concern about possible decreased licensee training and readiness in the period between biennial exercises.
Under the proposed approach, licensees will still be required to conduct emergency response training and drills of the onsite emergency response organization, and to provide training opportunities to State and local government personnel during the interval between biennial exercises.
21 Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50.47 (a)(l) is being revised in order to correct a typographical error that appeared in the 1993 edition of Title 10, Parts Oto 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Submission of Comments in Electronic Form Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of the letter in electronic form on a 5.25 or 3.5 inch computer diskette: IBM PC/DOS or MS/DOS format.
Data files should be provided in WordPerfect format or unformatted ASCII code.
The format and version should be identified on the diskette's external label.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission'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 qualify 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.
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
22 inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level),
Washington, DC 20037.
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.
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.
The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.
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 T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 415-6534.
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 ambiguities in the emergency planning regulations relating to exercises.
Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition of small
23 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).
As required by 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. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Backfit Analysis The proposed changes are intended to clarify the intent of the existing rule and facilitate greater flexibility in licensees' conduct of off-year emergency response training activities; but this action does not seek to impose any new or increased requirements in this area.
The proposed changes would permit, but not require, licensees to change their existing emergency plans and procedures to employ scenarios in off-year training or drills that do not go to severe core damage or result in offsite exposures.
No backfitting is intended or approved in connection with this proposed rule change.
24 List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, 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.
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).
- 2.
In§ 50.47, paragraph (a)(l) is revised to read as follows:
§ 50.47 Emergency plans.
25 (a)(l) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
No finding under this section is necessary for issuance of a renewed nuclear power reactor operating license.
- 3.
Appendix E to part 50 is amended by revising section IV,F.
paragraphs 2.b., and e. to read as follows:
IV.
F.
Appendix E -- Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities Content of Emergency Plans Training
- b.
Each licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan every two years.
The ~xercise may be included in the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph 2.c. of the section.
In addition, the licensee shall take actions necessary to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained during the interval between biennial exercises by conducting drills, including at least one drill
26 involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities.
The principal functional areas of emergency response include such activities as management and coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
During these drills, activation of all of the licensee's emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, and EOF) would not be necessary, licensees would have the opportunity to consider accident management strategies, supervised instruction would be permitted, operating staff would have the opportunity to resolve problems (success paths) rather than have controllers intervene, and the drills could focus on onsite training objectives.
- e.
Licensees shall enable any State or local government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the licensee's drills when requested by such State or local government.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this Zd, day of~. 1995.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
n c. Hoyle.
cretary of the Commission