ML23156A046

PRM-050-066 - 64FR03791 - Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

ML23156A046
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/25/1999
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
PRM-050-066, 64FR03791
Download: ML23156A046 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 01/25/1999 TITLE: PRM-050-066 - 64FR03791 - NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE; RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING CASE

REFERENCE:

PRM-050-066 64FR03791 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

Federal Register Cite No.: PR/PRM No.: Federal Register Publication Date: Issue No .

0 1/25/99 15 64FR3791 PRM-50-66 Comment Period Expires: 02/24/99 Comment Period Extended: Final Rule Date:

Contact Person(s): Mail Stop(s): Telephone Extension(s):

a) David L. Meyer T-6D59 301-415-7162 bl Carol Gallagher T-6D59 301-415-5905 cl Matthew Chiramal O-9D4 301-415-2845 Comments Entered Comments Acknowledged in Database Distributed Index Printed Labels Printed (card; e-mail)

(No ./Date/lnitials) (Date/Initials) (Date/Initials) (Date/Initials) (Date)

Ltr fm Michael Mariotte Ltr fm Michael Mariotte 01/27/99 ATB 01/27/99 ATB 01/27/99 ATB FRN - Petition for FRN - Petition for 01/27/99 ATB Rulemaking Rulemaking 01 /27 /99 ATB 01/27/99 ATB

1. 1 02/10/99 ATB #1 02/10/99 ATB 02/10/99 ATB 02/11 /99 ATB 02/11 /99

1. 2 02/12/99 ATB #2 02/12/99 ATB 02/12/99 ATB 02/18/99 ATB 02/18/99

1. 3-4 02/23/99 ATB #3 -4 02/23/99 ATB 02/23/99 ATB 02/25/99 ATB 02/25/99

1. 5 03/03/99 ATB #5 03/03/99 ATB 03/03/99 ATB 03/04/99 ATB 03/04/99 FRN - Petition for FRN - Petition for 08/25/99 ATB Rulemaking ; Denial Rulemaking; Denial 08/25/99 ATB 08/25/99 ATB FOLDER_ _OF

Docket No. PRM-50-66 8/25/1999 (64FR3791)

In the Matter of Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Rep res en ting Docket Document Miscellaneous Number Submitted Date Date Description By 12/11/1998 12/10/1998 Letter from Michael Mariotte, Executive Director, NIRS, submitting PRM requesting that nuclear utilities develop and implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address major system failures that may be caused by a Y2K problem 1/19/1999 1/15/1999 Federal Register Notice - Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt Christina K. Higgins Christina K. Higgins 2/10/1999 2/7/1999

• 2 Mike Wright Mike Wright 2/11/1999 2/9/1999 3 Thomas W. Ortciger, Illinois Department of Nuclear 2/23/1999 1/18/1999 Director Safety I

Comment Comment Representing Docket Document Miscellaneous Number Submitted Date Date Description By 4 Pat S. Griffith Pat S. Griffith 2/23/ 1999 2/ 19/1999 5 C. Lance Terry, TU Electric 3/2/1999 2/23/ 1999 Sr. Vice President and Principal Nuclear Officer

• 8/18/1999 8/17/1999 Federal Register Notice - Petition for rulemaking; Denial 2

OCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 5D-I,(.

(lt>'1FR31'11) DOC ;TE D us, lr -so-01-PJ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• 99 AUG 18 P12 :10 10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-66]

OF- -

l-i1.., ,...

ADJl r Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Petition for Rulemaking Denial

• AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-66) from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations to require licensees of operating nuclear power plant

• facilities to conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with a date-sensitive, computer-related failure resulting from a Year 2000 (Y2K) issue. The petitioner requested that NRC take this action to ensure that licensees of nuclear facilities have developed and can implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential major system failures that may be caused by a Y2K computer problem. NRC is denying the petition because the Commission has determined that the actions taken by the licensees to implement systematic and structured Y2K readiness contingency plans for critical Y2K dates in concert with existing required emergency response plans and procedures, and NRC's oversight of the

licensees' implementation of these Y2K readiness contingency plans provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and the NRC's letters to the petitioners are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, as well as NRC's rulemaking web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Chiramal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2845, E-mail address mxc@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

• NRC received three related petitions for rulemaking (PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66, and PRM-50-67), each dated December 10, 1998, submitted by the NIRS concerning various aspects of Y2K issues and nuclear safety. This petition (PRM-50-66) requested that NRC adopt regulations that would require facilities licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Part 50 to develop and implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential system failures.

The first petition (PRM-50-65) requested that NRC adopt regulations that would require facilities licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 to be Y2K compliant. The third petition 2

(PRM-50-67) requested that NRC adopt regulations that would require facilities licensed by NRC under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 to provide reliable sources of backup power.

Because of the nature of these petitions and the date-specific issues they address, the petitioner requested that the petitions be addressed on an expedited schedule.

On January 25, 1999, NRC published a notice of receipt of this petition for rulemaking in the Federal Register (64 FR 3791 ). It was available on the NRC's rulemaking website and NRC Public Document Room. The notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking invited interested

• persons to submit comments by February 24, 1999.

The Petition The petitioner requested that NRC adopt the following text as a rule 1:

"All licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E will conduct a full-scale

• emergency planning exercise (as normally required under 10 CFR 50.47) during 1999. This exercise shall include a component that includes failure of one or more computer or other digital systems (this is popularly known as the "Y2K bug")

on January 1, 2000, or other relevant date. Licensees that do not conduct, or that fail, this exercise shall close their facilities licensed under this Part by 1

In preliminary discussion, the petitioner stated, "We also believe that other major fuel cycle facilities should be subject to a similar rule." However, the petitioner provided no supporting reasoning, no regulatory text, and no specific request that NRC adopt such a rule. Therefore, NRC has considered only the specifically requested rule language.

3

December 1, 1999, until such time as the licensees have conducted a successful exercise.

NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, within 30 days of the date of this rule, a Regulatory Guide that outlines potential emergency exercise scenarios.

NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, by December 1, 1999, a Regulatory Guide that describes the various scenarios that have been undertaken and the successful (and unsuccessful) responses to the problems posed."

• The petitioner stated that although the probability of the occurrence of Y2K-related events that would require emergency response and the implementation of contingency plans is unknown, it would fall within the range of safety matters for which NRC requires emergency planning exercises. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that addressing Y2K-related problems will require the use of potentially unfamiliar contingency plans, relying on ingenuity to circumvent failure of essential communications systems or failure of offsite emergency responders to

• perform their tasks effectively and coping with issues not normally tested during emergency exercises.

The petitioner considers it prudent to require each licensee to conduct an exercise and that each exercise address a different aspect of the Y2K problem. The petitioner suggested that some exercises should test problems initiated by Y2K-related failures and that others should test problems exacerbated by Y2K-related failures. The petitioner believes that this approach would 4

provide some familiarity with the possible range of issues that could develop and create an overall industry capability to effectively address potential Y2K problems.

Under the petitioner's suggested regulation, the licensees would develop exercise scenarios that would be approved by NRC in an expedited fashion, and NRC would publish and distribute regulatory guides that would outline potential emergency response scenarios and describe the scenarios that were tested and the successful responses to the problem posed.

The petitioner stated that these actions would provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant licensees have developed and can implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address major system failures that may be caused by the Y2K problem.

Public Comments on the Petition In response to this petition, NRC received 64 comment letters, including 1 letter signed by 25 citizens from the State of Michigan, 3 from nuclear associated industries, 11 from utilities, 13 from private organizations, 1 from the State of Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, and 35 from private citizens.

Forty-six letters supported the petition, of which 13 were from private organizations, 32 were from private citizens, and one which was signed by 25 citizens of the State of Michigan.

Thirty-nine of these 46 letters communicated a brief statement in support of the petition. Seven of the 46 letters, of which 3 were from private individuals and 4 were from private organizations, discussed reasons for supporting the petition.

5

In some letters, support of the petition was based on belief that actual emergency response exercises will provide invaluable information in addressing Y2K issues because of the complexity of Y2K issues and the lack of experience of licensees of nuclear facilities in responding to such an event.

Others letters stated that all emergency plans rely heavily on offsite sources of help, such as police, fire, and other essential services, but that these services, as well as critical communications entities, may also be vulnerable to the Y2K problem if they are not properly assessed, remedied, and tested. Some letters cited numerous problems that have occurred in

• previous emergency planning exercises, irrespective of the Y2K problem. An example stated was the Pilgrim exercise of December 13, 1995, in which the Boston Edison Company was unable to communicate to the proper authorities. Other examples cited the occurrence of lost electrical buses. Some letters communicated the importance of testing and retesting for every conceivable contingency.

Eighteen letters opposed the petition, of which 3 were from private citizens, 3 were from

• • nuclear associated industries, one was from the State of Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, and 11 were from utilities. The letters opposing the petition stated that the additional emergency planning exercise suggested by the petition is not needed to ensure public health and safety.

These letters indicated that NRC analysis and industry testing have confirmed that safety systems will function to shut down a reactor if required, that licensees and NRC are developing contingency plans for key Y2K rollover dates, and that these contingency plans will evaluate specific risk factors and, where appropriate, provide mitigation strategies to allow continued safe operation. These letters stated that this effort provides a rational review and systematic 6

approach to issues that could affect the continued safe operation of a plant within the conditions of its license, which the commenters believe is a more effective approach for ensuring that plants continue to operate and meet commitments.

Reasons for Denial Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47, "Emergency Plans"; 10 CFR 50.54, "Conditions of Licenses,"

paragraphs (q), (s), and (t}; and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, nuclear facilities are required to provide emergency response capabilities that take into account a variety of circumstances and challenges, to exercise their plans periodically to develop and maintain key skills of involved personal, and to identify deficiencies in the emergency plan and personnel and take appropriate actions to correct identified deficiencies. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), nuclear power reactor licensees are required to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans that meet the planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b} and the requirements of Appendix E to Part 50. In part, licensees are required to train and test their organization and associated equipment to ensure that under all conditions and contingencies, such as power outages and computer and

• communication failures, appropriate emergency response is available and effective in an emergency.

To accomplish these requirements, licensees conduct numerous exercises and drills throughout the year. Inherent in the nature of emergency response is the realization that in an emergency, equipment may fail, loss of power may occur, personnel may not be available, and weather conditions may cause the emergency or escalate it. It is typical that, in the development of scenarios for exercises and drills, as well as in employee training programs, 7

communication links, plant computers, and display and monitoring equipment are "out of service" or Mfail" at inappropriate times. The NRC staff commonly oversees exercises that include these types of problems and the licensee's staff benefits from having to work around this training obstacle when a particular approach has been blocked. The NRC staff has observed licensees resorting to manual and backup systems to respond effectively and overcome these obstacles.

In terms of the effects of the Y2K problem, the NRC staff believes that the Y2K problem is not unique - it is a software error. Although the cause of computer and equipment failure may be different under Y2K, the result and the expected response are the same as situations encountered during many previous emergency exercises and drills. Therefore, there is no need to require licensees to conduct additional exercises to test specifically for potential Y2K failures.

In addition to existing emergency response plans, licensees of operating nuclear power plants and decommissioning power plants where spent fuel is stored at the plant site are preparing and implementing Y2K contingency plans as part of the plant-specific Y2K program .

• Operating nuclear power plant-specific Y2K contingency plans are based on the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute/Nuclear Utilities Software Management Group NEI/NUSMG 98-07 2 ,

"Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness Contingency Planning," dated August 1998, which provides a process and a method for preparing and implementing a facility-specific integrated contingency plan that considers specific risks from internal and external sources. The Y2K 2

NEI/NUSMG 98-07 was preceded by NEI/NUSMG 97-07, "Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness,"dated October 1997, which presented a strategy for developing and implementing a nuclear utility Y2K program.

8

contingency plans are generally built upon existing contingency activities (such as emergency preparedness, disaster recovery, storm damage restoration, grid restoration, and station blackout) and plant emergency procedures, coupled with the consideration that potential Y2K-related failures could affect many systems and components. Among the external events that are considered for contingency planning are -

• the loss of emergency plan equipment and services: pagers, radios, sirens and meteorology information, and

• the loss of essential services: telephone, microwave, water, satellites, networks, security, police, and fire-fighting capability.

The need for simulated exercises, development of special procedures, and Y2K contingency plan specific training is considered in the Y2K contingency planning process.

Contingency plan verification is included in NEI/NUSMG 98-07 guidelines to provide confidence that the plans can be executed as intended. The contingency planning efforts, as outlined in

• NEI/NUSMG 98-07, provide additional training, staffing, and material procurement for occurrences that could happen at any time but that have a higher probability of occurring during the critical Y2K-related dates. Licensees and NRC are currently developing contingency plans for critical Y2K rollover dates. These contingency plans evaluate specific risk factors and, where appropriate, provide mitigation strategies to cope with plant-specific effects of the most probable and serious failures that might be initiated or exacerbated by the Y2K problem.

9

~ .. . :. ... ~.. . . . . . ... . ' .

-* '- j, * ..,;

• * ' J

• .l

• ~

On May 11, 1998, NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 98-01, uvear 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants." In GL 98-01, NRC requested that all operating nuclear power plant licensees submit written responses regarding their facility-specific Y2K readiness programs in order to obtain confirmation that licensees are addressing the Y2K problem effectively. All licensees have responded to GL 98-01, stating that they have adopted plant-specific programs that are intended to make the plants Y2K ready by July 1, 1999. These programs are patterned on industry guidelines (NEI/NUSMG 97-07, uNuclear Utilities Year 2000 Readiness") that have been found acceptable by NRC. GL 98-01 also requests a written response, no later than July 1, 1999, confirming that these facilities are Y2K ready, including contingency planning. Licensees who are not Y2K ready by July 1, 1999, must provide a status report and schedule for the remaining work to ensure timely Y2K readiness.

NRC considers the guidance in NEI/NUSMG 98-07, when properly implemented, as an acceptable approach for licensees to mitigate and manage Y2K-induced events that could occur on Y2K-critical dates .

• As part of its oversight of licensee Y2K program activities, NRC staff audited the contingency planning effort of six licensee facilities. These audits were completed during June 1999. These audits focused on the licensee's approach to addressing both internal and external Y2K risks to safe plant operation, based on the guidance in NEI/NUSMG 98-07. The audits at these facilities examined in detail back-up measures the utilities have in place to deal with possible Y2K problems, either on site or off site, including problems with the loss of emergency plan equipment and services (pagers, radios, sirens, and meteorology), the loss of essential 10

services (telephone, microwave, water, satellites, networks, security, police), and the failure of the offsite emergency responders to perform their task effectively.

Additionally, NRC regional staff reviewed Y2K activities at all operating nuclear power plants to verify the status of licensee efforts to ensure that all plants will be able to function safely on January 1, 2000, and beyond. The reviews: (1) verify that all NRC licensees have implemented Y2K program activities; (2) evaluate the progress they have made to ensure that they are on schedule to achieve Y2K readiness; and (3) assess their contingency plans for addressing Y2K-related issues. The regional staff is using guidance prepared by the NRC Headquarters staff that is based on NRC GL 98-01, NEI/NUSMG 97-07, and NEI/NUSMG 98-

07. These reviews were completed by July 1999.

The offsite components of emergency preparedness and response, which are the responsibility of States, counties, and municipalities, are already utilized by those governmental entities to address a wide range of events (e.g., grid failures, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, snowstorms, industrial accidents). These events often involve widespread loss of normal capabilities and services (e.g., loss of electricity and telephone service, blocking of roads) coupled with the need for a multi-capability response. NRC is also working closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on its plans to conduct Y2K workshops for the State and local radiological emergency preparedness community. NRC and nuclear facilities licensees will participate in these workshops. NRC is an active member of the Emergency Services Sector Working Group for Y2K, which is headed by FEMA. In addition, to facilitate Agreement State efforts to address the Y2K issue, a link to State Government Year 11

2000 Web sites has been provided by the NRC. NRC will make every effort to share with the States any Y2K issue that may also affect Agreement States or Agreement State licensees.

NIRS has not explained why the approach currently being pursued by the licensees, the nuclear industry, and NRC does not provide reasonable assurance of adequate emergency response capabilities during the transition from 1999 to 2000.

In the case of research and training/test reactors, licensees of these facilities also have established programs to evaluate and correct Y2K deficiencies. Many research reactors will be shut down on January 1, 2000, as the instit~tions operating them (e.g., universities and laboratories) will be closed for the holiday. Further, these reactors often have passive safety features and low power levels, which ensure minimal potential offsite consequences. In addition, NRC staff concluded that any research reactor in operation on January 1, 2000, could be readily shut down manually using emergency procedures and existing shutdown systems, even if their operational systems should experience a Y2K problem.

Conclusion Plant-specific industry planning for Y2K contingencies, which is built upon existing emergency response plans and procedures required by the current emergency preparedness regulations, provides a reasonable assurance that adequate protection measures will be taken in the event of radiological emergency during Y2K critical dates. Imposing a new prescriptive rule as proposed in the petition in an area in which the industry action is already exceeding the actions that address the petitioner's general issues would be counterproductive to the ongoing 12

Y2K readiness efforts of the licensees. Therefore, the additional full-scale emergency planning exercise requested by the NIRS is not necessary to ensure emergency response capabilities to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety despite the occurrence of Y2K problems.

For these reasons, the Commission denies the petition.

))., /(J Jr Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this -11.. day of_~_==,,,.......

_ _ _, 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(~,,_4-, J .r3~A Andrew L. Bates Acting Secretary of the Commission.

13

DOCKET ED us i ~('

Of" r;1~ . February 23, 1999 C. Lance Terry ADLJi f Senior Vice President

& Principal Nuclear Officer Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p 5o-fot-Washington, D.C. 20555 FR37t:J!)

ATTN.: Rulemaking and Adjudication Staff

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING RELATED TO YEAR 2000 COMPUTER (64 FR 3791- January 25, 1999)

Gentlemen:

As requested in the referenced federal register notice, TU Electric submits comments to the proposed petition for rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service that requests the NRC amend its regulations to require every utility to conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with a date-sensitive, computer-related failure resulting from a Year 2000 (Y2K) issue.

We recommend that the Commission deny this petition related to Year 2000 computer. issues.

Current regulations are adequate to address potential issues that may arise from potential Y2K computer issues. NRC Generic Letter 98-01 summarizes some of the applicable regulatory

• requirements. NRC staff oversight of the industry's Year 2000 remediation is providing the technical information needed by the Commission to make informed decisions and ensure public health and safety.

TU Electric endorses comments developed by NEI and NUBARG addressing the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (64 Fed. Reg 3791-1/25/99).

The NRC staff started early in its Y2K oversight effort. In December 1996 the NRC staff issued an information notice to ensure the nuclear industry recognized the potential ) or 'problems in computer systems and software. In a September 1997 report to the Commission the staffs technical analysis determined that safety-related initiation and actuation systems (e.g., reactor trip system, engineered safety feature actuation system) were not subject to the Year 2000 concern. Industry testing has confirmed this assessment. Industry testing has shown that there are cases where remediation is required, but no situation has been identified that would prevent proper operation of safety systems to shutdown the plant if required.

The NRC staff has closely monitored and evaluated the effectiveness of nuclear power plant licensee Y2K readiness programs. As part of the oversight process, the NRC staff has COMANCHE PEAK SI !::AM ELECTRIC ST A TION P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043-1002 MAR - 4 1999

~cknowledged by card ....................... a;,.~

u.S UCt.EAR REGULATORY WIIIIMtSlSfON RUlEMAKINGS &ADJUDICA110NS SfAFF FRCE OFlltE SEOE'ARY OF THE COMMISSION

TXX-99059 Page 2 of 3 monitored industry training sessions, workshops and seminars. This has provided the staff with insights on the industry process. The staff is conducting a series of licensee audits, evaluating implementation of the industry program and conducting detailed technical reviews.

Current regulations are adequate to allow both the licensee and Commission to make operability determinations for plant equipment and systems. If a Y2K issue affects the operability of a system, actions required by the license and regulations will be taken.

The nuclear industry has committed to a systematic program to find and remediate potential Y2K issues. Any safety related systems for which needed remediation has not been completed will be reported to the Commission by July 1, 1999. Quality assurance procedures and documentation of testing and remediation has been consistent with regulatory requirements.

Additional regulations are not required to ensure safe plant operation.

The additional emergency planning exercise suggested by the petition is not needed to ensure public health and safety. NRC analysis and industry testing, as mentioned above, have confirmed that safety systems will function to shutdown a reactor if required. The facts do not support the petitioners speculation that Y2K-induced events could cause severe challenges to critical safety systems leading to potential core meltdown.

Licensees and the NRC are conducting contingency planning for key Y2K rollover dates. These contingency plans evaluate specific risk factors and, where appropriate, providing mitigation strategies. This effort provides a rational review and systematic approach to issues that could impact the continued safe operation of a plant within the conditions of its license. This is a more

• effective approach to ensuring plants can continue to operate and meet commitments.

Summary The Commission has acted responsibly to address potential computer issues related to the Year 2000 date rollover. The staff began its technical review early and has taken advantage of many opportunities to oversee and evaluate the industry's effort. We do not believe that additional regulations are needed to maintain the current high standards for public health and safety.

TXX-99059 Page 3 of 3 If you have any questions please contact Connie Wilkerson at (254)-897-0144.

Sincerely,

• By:~

Roger . Walker Regulatory Affairs Manager DNH/dnh Mr. E. W. Merschoff, Region IV C.

Resident Inspectors, CPSES (2)

Mr. T. Polich, NRR Mr. J. I. Tapia, Region IV

DOCKET NUMBER 50 _'1 <, .1-PETITION RULE PAM so- r,;

{(p'{r:R31'1i)

• 99 FEB 23 fFl!btJ.Giry 19, 1999 Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 orrlt , .

AO,IU J Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Re: Development of emergency plans to address major systems failure that may be caused by a Y2K problem I feel that it would be wise to conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise. You see, I live within 5 miles of a nuclear power plant. When any complete testing is done, I, as a neighbor, would like to be informed as to when it is going to happen. I would leave my home at the time and visit relatives tmtil the testing was over. I feel a real threat because so many things could go wrong.

Re: Back-up power It is a good idea to have a 60 day supply of fuel for emergency diesel generators.

However, jf the generators cannot be proven to be operational, or if aJJ or a portion of the power grid fails, f would rather have NO POWER than to have an unsafe condition.

Our family is preparing for a NO POVv'ER situation anyway. (We are campers from way back)

Sincerely, Pat S. Griffith 5836 Count1y Lane Stanley N.C. 28164

.r

• FEB 25 1999

~wledgeQ Dy

lJ.8 UCLEARREGULATORY COMMiSSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUOICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFTiiE SECRETARY OF THE COMMIS8tON DocumentStl!lllab Postm&fk DaCe ~ /4t; /?1 CoplesRecaed ' /

Add'I Coples Raprocu:ed _ _ 3::_ _ _

19 ~

ooc:~FTEO DEPARTME ;a.,..._,,..... __, ~ EAR SAFET¥ 1035 OUTER 2 - *99 FEB 23 P1 :QQ George H. Ryan Thomas W. Ortciger Governor Director ,: f'"):

1l February 18, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER Secretary PETITION RULE PRM 5 o- '1 ~

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( ~t./J=R37ej;)

Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Docket No. PRM-50-66, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking (Emergency Planning Exercises for Year 2000 Problem)

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) submits herewith its comments on the above-mentioned petition for rulemaking. 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.

IDNS strongly urges the NRC to reject the petition to require all nuclear power plants to conduct Year 2000 (Y2K)-based exercises before the end of calendar 1999. The petition is without merit for a number of reasons, which are explained in detail below.

The petition is not timely. The Y2K issue is not new, and if it truly posed a critical and unresolved safety issue (which is questionable, as detailed later), the time to submit this petition would have been before 1995, so that a comprehensive and coordinated effort could have been made to evaluate and correct the problem.

The petition is flawed. The petitioner fails to assert that the ongoing activities by individual utilities and the NRC to identify and correct Y2K problems are insufficient to protect public health and safety. (Requests for rulemaking traditionally must demonstrate that the issue at hand is not being otherwise addressed.)

The petition is irrelevant. Exercise scenarios over the past 15 years have dealt with a wide range of emergency system failures, including the loss of automated scram

~edbyeard ...~r~2s 1sss __ ......

lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO RULEMAKINGS &ADJUOICAllONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECR£TARY Of THE COMMISSION DocumtRSW'el*

Secretary Page 2 February 18, 1999 and other plant shutdown mechanisms. The loss of computer or digital microprocessor operated systems that conceivably might be affected by Y2K problems does not preclude the ability of plant operators to implement safe shutdown procedures manually under all but the most extreme and highly improbable circumstances.

The petitioner's assertion that "addressing Y2K-related problems would require the use of potentially unfamiliar contingency plans" is inconsistent with the methodology required for emergency planning under NRC regulations and NUREG-0654. Such plans are thoroughly reviewed and approved by the federal government as part of the licensing process, tested and evaluated under a prescribed schedule, and revised and updated as necessary.

The petitioner's assertion that addressing Y2K-related problems would require "relying on ingenuity to circumvent failure of essential communications systems" ignores the regulatory requirement that redundant communications capabilities are an essential part of the emergency plans already in place. Moreover, the assertion implies that a utility or off-site emergency response organization that relies on a commercial telephone system as a communications medium should be able to preclude a Y2K-related failure of that system, and that is beyond the control of such users. The availability of back-up communications systems, i.e., radios, cell phones, or other devices, provides reasonable assurance that adequate communications will be available in the event of an emergency.

There is nothing in the record to support the petitioner's argument that a Y2K-related problem affecting a given utility would necessarily or in any way affect the ability of off-site emergency responders to act effectively to protect public health and safety.

The assertion is unsubstantiated and must be rejected.

Development of the range of scenarios suggested by the petitioner for use in exercises during the ensuing 11 months remaining in calendar 1999 would be virtually impossible without the imposition of an unreasonable economic burden on the utilities as well as on state and local off-site response agencies.

Absent the citation of specific concerns about anticipated safety system failures that could occur due to Y2K-related problems, the petition fails to meet the burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability that public health and safety would be adversely affected by such problems. We therefore recommend rejection of the petition.

Secretary Page 3 February 18, 1999 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important document. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

TWO:aes

• cc: Dave Smith, IEMA Martin Vonk, ComEd Ken Evans, Illinois Power Gordon Appel

February 9, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER P 5o-~, 0

~ ~1<37'11)

OOCK,:TED Concerning the petition for Emergency Preperations to Nuclear Powerplants o ' S R ,

Dec. 1, 1999

• 99 FEB 11 P2 :15 I would agree entirely with this Petition.

OFr; I have always been, and will always be, a proponent of Nuclear Energy, but as A RU~ uter programmer that has been dealing with the Y2K issue from a programming perspective, I believe it is in the publics best interest to have the contingency plans in place for Emergency Preperations outlined in the petition.

In this instance, it is better to be safe then sorry.

Mike Wright 8641 Creston Street Pinckney, MI 48169 FEB 19 1999

.fdalDWledg8d by cmd _,,,__.....,.._

REGULATORY Ml SION HUU::rNWM:lS &ADJUOICA110NS STAFF OFFICE OF"AiE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISStON Oocuma Sldllllcs J/c;q ,/tkJr/~ ~ -~

Cq&~ I Add'ICqa~ s- -

Specte}~ 1. -

l) ID~ . I

February 10, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-66, "Y2K ISSUES AND EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking.

This comment was received via the rulemaking website on February 9, 1999. The submitter's name is Mike Wright, 8641 Creston Street, Pinckney, MI 48169. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

M. Chiramal

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RU.E I? 50,/t;b (!)

FR31qQ DOCK ETE D From: "M. Higgins" <mhiggin1@columbus.rr.com> US. RC To: TWFN_DO.twf2_po(NRCWEB)

Date: Sun, Feb 7, 1999 5:54 PM

Subject:

Y2K and Emergency Planning

• 99 FEB 10 AS :43 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, Ot J:.. 1 RU

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N~'-has received and r~quests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The petition has been docketed by the Commission and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-5066. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to require every nuclear utility to conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with a date-sensitive, computer-related failure resulting from a Year 2000 issue (Y2K). The petitioner requests that the NRC take this action to ensure that nuclear power plant licensees have developed and can implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address major system failures that may be caused by a Y2K problem.

The petitioner requests that the NRC adopt the following text as a rule:

All licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E will conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise (as normally required under 10 CFR 50.47) during 1999.

This exercise shall include a component that includes failure of one or more computer or other digital systems (this is popularly known as the "Y2K bug") on January 1, 2000, or other relevant date. Licensees that do not conduct, or that fail, this exercise shall close their facilities licensed under this part by December 1, 1999, until such time as the licensees have conducted a successful exercise.

The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, within 30 days of the date of this rule, a Regulatory Guide that outlines potential emergency exercise scenarios. The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, by December 1, 1999, a Regulatory Guide that describes the various scenarios that have been undertaken and the successful (and unsuccessful) responses to the problem posed.

The petitioner states that although the probability of Y2K-related events occurring that would require emergency response and the implementation of contingency plans is unknown, it would fall within the range of safety matters for which NRC requires emergency planning exercises. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that addressing Y2K-related problems will require the use of potentially unfamiliar contingency plans, relying on ingenuity to circumvent failure of essential communications systems or the failure of off-site emergency responders to perform their tasks effectively, and coping with issues not normally tested. during emergency exercises. 11~ <

The petitioner believes that it is prudent to require each licensee to conduct an exercise and that each exercise address a different aspect of the Y2K problem. The petitioner suggests that some exercises should test problems initiated by Y2K-related failures and that others should test problems exacerbated by Y2K-related failures. The petitioner believes that this would provide some familiarity with the possible range of issues that could develop and create an overall industry capability to address potential Y2K problems. * * **

IJ.S. NUClEAR'REGUlATORY COMMISSION AULEMAKINGS&AllJUDICA1Dtl ll'AFF OFFICE OF'R4Eaa::AEmRV OF THE COMMIS8ION Oc.lclmm Sdltlcs P<anerkoate ~ /10 /'i ff t<.,t,c,'r:R~ ~~

Coples RGcGlw8c1 _ _ _ / ...--- -

t ,.!~~ ~*

Under the petitioner's suggested regulation, the licensees would develop exercise scenarios that would be approved by the NRC in an expedited fashion and the NRC would publish and distribute regulatory guides that would outline potential emergency response scenarios and describe the scenarios that were tested and the successful responses to the problem posed.

The petitioner believes that this action would provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant licensees have developed and can implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address major system failures that may be caused by the Y2K problem.

The petitioner also believes that other major fuel cycle facilities should be subject to a similar rule.

Thank you!

Christina K. Higgins 2464 Buckley Road Columbus, OH 43220 614-628-6286 email: mhiggin1@columbus.rr.com

February 8, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /1 . 0 A, POL t ~

ADM, DAS ~ ~0

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PRM-50-66 "Y2K ISSUES AND EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES" Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject petition for rulemaking .

• This comment was received via e-mail on February 8, 1999. The submitter's name is Christina K.

Higgins, 2464 Buckley Road, Columbus, OH 43220. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Matthew Chiramal (mail stop O9D-4) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

M. Chiramal

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 5o-lo f-( <,tf ~R 3791) DO1 KETED 5~b ( 01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '99 JAN 19 P1 2 :12 10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-66]

Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

• ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

The petition has been docketed by the Commission and has been assigned Docket No.

PRM-50-66. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to require every nuclear utility to conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with a date-sensitive, computer-related failure resulting from a Year 2000 issue (Y2K). The petitioner requests that the NRC take this action to ensure that nuclear power plant licensees have developed and can implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address major system failures that may be caused by a Y2K problem.

g~ o:2~ l'fCJ'i DATE: Submit comments by (SS Elayc fello*Ning--ptt"~i!'t;on in the FedeFal Aegisteft.

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.

' .... ~- ' *--,--------

.... .... ~ . - . -* -----------------

2 ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail:

CAG@nrc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-7162 or

• Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or E-mail: DLM1 @NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received three related petitions for rulemaking, each dated December 10, 1998, submitted by the Nuclear Information Resource Service concerning various aspects of Y2K issues and nuclear safety. This petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations to require nuclear power plant and major fuel cycle facilities to develop and implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential system failures. The two related petitions would require that nuclear facilities be shutdown if

3 they are not compliant with Y2K issues (PRM-50-65) and that nuclear facilities provide reliable back-up sources of power for nuclear facilities (PRM-50-67).

Because of the nature of these petitions and the date-specific issues they address, the petitioner requests that the petitions be filed expeditiously and that public comment on the actions be limited to 30 days.

The Petitioner's Suggested Amendment The petitioner requests that the NRC adopt the following text as a rule:

All licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E will conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise (as normally required under 10 CFR 50.47) during 1999. This exercise shall include a component that includes failure of one or more computer or other digital systems (this is popularly known as the "Y2K bug") on January 1, 2000, or other relevant date. Licensees that do not conduct, or that fail, this exercise shall close their facilities licensed under this part by December 1, 1999, until such time as the licensees have conducted a successful exercise .

• The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, within 30 days of the date of this rule, a Regulatory Guide that outlines potential emergency exercise scenarios. The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, by December 1, 1999, a Regulatory Guide that describes the various scenarios that have been undertaken and the successful (and unsuccessful) responses to the problem posed.

Discussion The petitioner states that although the probability of Y2K-related events occurring that would require emergency response and the implementation of contingency plans is unknown, it

t 4

would fall within the range of safety matters for which NRC requires emergency planning exercises. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that addressing Y2K-related problems will require the use of potentially unfamiliar contingency plans, relying on ingenuity to circumvent failure of essential communications systems or the failure of off-site emergency responders to perform their tasks effectively, and coping with issues not normally tested during emergency exercises.

The petitioner believes that it is prudent to require each licensee to conduct an exercise and that each exercise address a different aspect of the Y2K problem. The petitioner suggests that some exercises should test problems initiated by Y2K-related failures and that others should test problems exacerbated by Y2K-related failures. The petitioner believes that this would provide some familiarity with the possible range of issues that could develop and create an overall industry capability to address potential Y2K problems.

Under the petitioner's suggested regulation, the licensees would develop exercise scenarios that would be approved by the NRC in an expedited fashion and the NRC would publish and distribute regulatory guides that would outline potential emergency response

• scenarios and describe the scenarios that were tested and the successful responses to the problem posed.

The petitioner believes that this action would provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant licensees have developed and can implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address major system failures that may be caused by the Y2K problem.

5 The petitioner also believes that other major fuel cycle facilities should be subject to a similar rule.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this l.S +/-6, day of January, 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

~Vi~-UJ Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.

Nuclear Information and Resource,-~ ;v 1424 16th St. NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20036; 202-328-0002; fax:202-462- 2183; e- mai1:nirsnet@igc.apc.0tg~eb:www.nirs.org DOCKET *----n~nER PETITIO RLlE * , (.

December 10, 1998 (r,'lff< 31'1!)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch Petition for Rulemaking re: Y2K issues and emergency planning for nuclear facilities The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) submits the following petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802.

Although NIRS normally believes in and advocates ample public comment periods, the nature of this petition and the date-specific issue it addresses require that this petition be placed on an expedited schedule. Therefore*, we respectfully request that the NRC file this petition immediately and that public comment be limited to 30 days.

The purpose of this petition is to provide reasonable assurance that licensees operating nuclear power reactors have developed and can implement adequate contingency and emergency plans to address potential major systems failures that may be caused by the Y2K computer problem. We also believe that other major fuel cycle facilities should be subject to a similar rule.

Under this petition, every nuclear utility must conduct, during 1999, a full-scale emergency planning exercise that involves coping with a Y2K-related failure. This petition would return, for one year only, the requirement that nuclear utilities conduct an annual, rather than biannual, emergency exercise. Each utility should address different aspects of the Y2K problem that run the gamut from unforeseen and severe challenges to critical safety systems leading to potential core meltdown; to problems with internal telecommunications systems; communications with off-site authorities during accident conditions; to problems with non-critical systems that may challenge other systems; to problems of electrical grid instability and station blackout. In this manner, utilities can build a shared storehouse of knowledge that can be used in the evertt of actua

• related problems.*

The probabilities of Y2K-related events occurring that would require emergency response and implementation of contingency plans are unknown, but from all credible reports,

@ printed on recycled paper dedicated to a sound non-nuclear energy policy.

r l

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY OOMt.lSSK)N RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS lrAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DocumentStatlsb Postmark Date I~ ljt/ 9t HT>

Copies Received _ _*_-=-/_ _ __

Add'I Copies R8produced _ _

Sp . I . . .

f.,___

certainly fall within the range of safety matters for which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires emergency planning exercises. Moreover, addressing Y2K-related problems will necessitate using potentially-unfamiliar contingency plans; relying upon ingenuity to work-around failures of essential communications systems and/or failure of off-site emergency responders to perform their tasks effectively; and generally coping with issues not normally tested during emergency exercises.

It is therefore simple prudence to require licensees to conduct one exercise each to provide some familiarity with the possible range of issues that may develop and to create an overall industry capability to effectively address the potential problems. Some exercises should test problems initiated by Y2K-related failures (in both computer systems and embedded chips) while others should test problems exacerbated by Y2K-related failures.

Exercise scenarios should be developed by the licensees and approved, in a timely and expedited fashion, by the NRC. In this manner, the NRC can help assure that the full gamut of potential Y2K problems are addressed by the industry. The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, within 30 days of the date of this rule, a Regulatory Guide that outlines potential emergency exercise scenarios. The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, by December 1, 1999, a Regulatory Guide that describes the various scenarios that have been undertaken and the successful responses to the problems posed.

NIRS requests that the NRC adopt the following text as a rule:

"All licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E will conduct a full-scale emergency planning exercise (as normally required under 10 CFR 50.47) during 1999.

This exercise shall include a component that includes failure of one or more computer or other digital systems (this is popularly known as the "Y2K bug") on January 1, 2000 or other relevant date. Licensees that do not conduct, or that fail, this exercise shall close their facilities licensed under this Part by December 1, 1999 until such time as the licensees have conducted a successful exercise.

"The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, within 30 days of the date of this rule, a Regulatory Guide that outlines potential emergency exercise scenarios. The NRC shall publish and provide to each licensee, by December 1, 1999, a Regulatory Guide that describes the various scenarios that have been undertaken and the successful (and unsuccessful) responses to the problems posed."

Respectfully submitted,

~ ,

,t~ / ; '.~ -'>

,. . i Michael Mariotte Executive Director