Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices 5187 

(these are not toll-free numbers), e-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Employment Training 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

Currently Approved Collection. 

Title of Collection: National 

Agriculture Workers Survey (NAWS). 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0453. 

Description: NAWS provides an 

understanding of the manpower 

resources available to U.S. agriculture. It 

is the national source of information on 

the demographic, occupational health 

and employment characteristics of hired 

crop workers. For additional 

information, see related notices 

published at Volume 73 FR 50983 on 

September 5, 2007 and Volume 73 FR 

21376 April 21, 2008. 

Darrin A. King, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–1934 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: 

Mississippi River Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m., March 30, 2009. 

PLACE: On board MISSISSIPPI V at City 

Front, Caruthersville, MO. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (1) 

Summary report by President of the 

Commission on national and regional 

issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and Commission programs 

and projects on the Mississippi River 

and its tributaries; (2) District 

Commander’s overview of current 

project issues within the St. Louis 

District; and (3) Presentations by local 

organizations and members of the 

public giving views or comments on any 

issue affecting the programs or projects 

of the Commission and the Corps of 

Engineers. 

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m., March 31, 2009. 

PLACE: On board MISSISSIPPI V at 

Tunica River Park, Tunica, MS. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (1) 

Summary report by President of the 

Commission on national and regional 

issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and Commission programs 

and projects on the Mississippi River 

and its tributaries; (2) District 

Commander’s overview of current 

project issues within the Memphis 

District; and (3) Presentations by local 

organizations and members of the 

public giving views or comments on any 

issue affecting the programs or projects 

of the Commission and the Corps of 

Engineers. 

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m., April 1, 2009. 

PLACE: On board MISSISSIPPI V at City 

Front, Vicksburg, MS. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (1) 

Summary report by President of the 

Commission on national and regional 

issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and Commission programs 

and projects on the Mississippi River 

and its tributaries; (2) District 

Commander’s overview of current 

project issues within the Memphis 

District; and (3) Presentations by local 

organizations and members of the 

public giving views or comments on any 

issue affecting the programs or projects 

of the Commission and the Corps of 

Engineers. 

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m., April 3, 2009. 

PLACE: On board MISSISSIPPI V at City 

Dock, Baton Rouge, LA. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (1) 

Summary report by President of the 

Commission on national and regional 

issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and Commission programs 

and projects on the Mississippi River 

and its tributaries; 

(2) District Commander’s overview of 

current project issues within the 

Vicksburg District, and (3) Presentations 

by local organizations and members of 

the public giving views or comments on 

any issue affecting the programs or 

projects of the Commission and the 

Corps of Engineers. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Mr. Stephen Gambrell, telephone 601– 

634–5766. 

George T. Shepard, 

Colonel, EN, Secretary, Mississippi River 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–2008 Filed 1–27–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency 

Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: 3 p.m., Wednesday, 

January 28, 2009. 

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314–3428. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Consideration of supervisory 

activities. Closed pursuant to 

Exemptions (4), (6), (8) and (9)(A)(ii). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 

Telephone: 703–518–6304. 

Mary Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–2055 Filed 1–27–09; 4:15 p.m.] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. PRM–50–85; NRC–2007–0014] 

Mr. Eric Epstein, Chairman, Three Mile 

Island Alert, Inc.; Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 

for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by Mr. 

Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile 

Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA). The petitioner 

requested that the NRC amend its 

emergency preparedness regulations to 

require that all host school pick-up 

centers be located at least 5 to 10 miles 

beyond the radiation plume exposure 

boundary zone to ensure that all school 

children are protected in the event of a 

radiological emergency. 

DATES: The docket for PRM–50–85 is 

closed on January 29, 2009. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
5188 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: Publicly available 

documents related to this petition, 

including public comments, the PRM, 

and the NRC’s letter of denial to the 

petitioner, may be viewed electronically 

at http://www.regulations.gov (search 

Docket ID NRC–2007–0014) or on public 

computers in the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), O–1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738. The 

PDR reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are also available electronically 

via the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room 

at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. From this Web site, the 

public can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of the 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

reference staff by telephone at (800) 

387–4209 or (301) 415–4737 or by 

e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, Telephone: (301) 415– 

3092; e-mail 

Harry.Tovmassian@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On April 11, 2007, the NRC received 

a PRM (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML071070475) from Mr. Eric Epstein, 

Chairman of TMIA. The NRC docketed 

the petition on April 17, 2007, and 

assigned it Docket No. PRM–50–85. The 

petitioner requested that the 

Commission amend its emergency 

preparedness regulations in Title 10, 

Part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR part 50) to require that all host 

school pick-up centers be located at 

least 5 to 10 miles beyond the radiation 

plume exposure boundary zone to 

properly ensure that all school children 

are protected in the event of a 

radiological emergency. The petitioner 

observed that this criterion applies to 

the general population relocation 

centers and that the lack of such a 

criterion for host school pick-up centers 

is a ‘‘regulatory gap.’’ 

The NRC notes that, as discussed 

herein, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 

distinguishes host school pick-up 

centers from general population 

relocation centers. Host school pick-up 

centers serve as temporary locations 

where school children can be held 

while they wait for their parents or 

guardians to pick them up, whereas 

general population relocation centers 

offer longer term assistance to people 

displaced from their homes. FEMA 

guidance provides for the location of 

host schools outside the plume 

exposure pathway emergency planning 

zone (EPZ), whereas joint NRC and 

FEMA guidance provides for the 

location of general population 

relocation centers at least 5 miles and 

preferably 10 miles beyond the 

boundaries of the EPZ. 

Discussion 

The Commission is responsible for 

licensing and regulating nuclear 

facilities as mandated by the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended; and other applicable statutes. 

These responsibilities include 

protecting public health and safety, 

protecting the environment, and 

protecting and safeguarding nuclear 

materials and nuclear power plants in 

the interest of national security. In June 

1979, the Commission began formal 

reconsideration of the role of emergency 

planning in ensuring the continued 

protection of the public health and 

safety. This effort resulted in the 

issuance of emergency preparedness 

regulations published in the Federal 

Register on August 19, 1980 (45 FR 

55402), and the development of onsite 

and offsite emergency plans within the 

EPZ of each nuclear power plant located 

in the U.S. 

Although the NRC is the sole Federal 

agency responsible for licensing and 

regulating nuclear reactors, Federal 

oversight of radiological emergency 

planning and preparedness for nuclear 

facilities involves both FEMA and the 

NRC. Executive Order No.12148— 

Federal Emergency Management, dated 

July 15, 1979, assigned FEMA the 

authority and responsibility to establish 

Federal regulations and policies and to 

coordinate civilian emergency planning 

within emergency preparedness 

programs. In December 1979, a 

Presidential Directive assigned FEMA 

the lead Federal responsibility for State 

and local emergency planning and 

preparedness activities with respect to 

jurisdictions near nuclear reactors, 

while assigning onsite emergency 

planning and preparedness oversight to 

the NRC. The NRC and FEMA entered 

into a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) that delineated the agencies’ 

roles in ensuring adequate emergency 

preparedness. Under the provisions of 

this MOU (Appendix A, ‘‘Memorandum 

of Understanding Between Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,’’ to 44 

CFR part 353, ‘‘Fee for Services in 

Support, Review, and Approval of State 

and Local Government or Licensee 

Radiological Emergency Plans and 

Preparedness’’), FEMA reviews State 

and local emergency plans and 

preparedness and approves them based 

upon its findings and determinations 

with respect to the adequacy of the State 

and local plans and the capabilities of 

State and local governments to 

effectively implement these plans and 

preparedness measures. Accordingly, 

FEMA is the lead authority concerning 

the direction, recommendations, and 

determinations regarding offsite State 

and local government radiological 

emergency planning efforts necessary 

for the public health and safety. 

FEMA provides its findings and 

determinations on offsite preparedness 

to the NRC for use in its licensing 

processes. The NRC reviews these 

findings and determinations and, in 

conjunction with its assessment of the 

onsite preparedness and capabilities, 

determines whether the overall state of 

emergency preparedness satisfies the 

requirements for the issuance of 

operating licenses for, or for the 

continued operation of, nuclear reactors. 

In keeping with their respective 

statutory authorities, the NRC and 

FEMA issue and maintain regulations 

and regulatory guidance concerning 

emergency preparedness. The NRC and 

FEMA jointly developed broadly 

worded planning standards that onsite 

and offsite emergency plans would be 

required to meet in order to receive a 

favorable determination of 

preparedness. The respective agency 

regulations codified these planning 

standards (see 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 44 

CFR 350.5(a)), and the NRC and FEMA 

provided supporting guidance in the 

agencies’ jointly-prepared NUREG– 

0654/FEMA–REP–1, Revision1, 

‘‘Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation 

of Radiological Emergency Response 

Plans and Preparedness in Support of 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ dated November 

30, 1980 (ML040420012), and addenda, 

dated March 31, 2001 (ML021050240). 

Each agency has further supplemented 

that guidance with guidance documents 

addressing emergency preparedness 

topics within its respective 

cognizance—the NRC with onsite topics 

and FEMA with offsite topics. 

Public Comments 

On July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37470), the 

NRC published a notice of receipt of 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices 5189 

PRM–50–85 and invited interested 

persons to submit their comments. The 

NRC received 14 comment letters in 

response. Comment letters came from 

five private citizens, three 

representatives from State government 

agencies, and six public advocacy 

organizations. Thirteen of the comment 

letters supported the petition while 

giving varying reasons for doing so. 

Comments Supporting the Petition 

The NRC received 13 comment letters 

supporting the petition. One commenter 

stated that the granting of the petition is 

in accordance with the 

recommendations of the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). Another individual expressed 

the opinion that the current regulations 

allow evacuees to be taken to centers 

just over the 10-mile evacuation line, 

which could possibly have ‘‘some very 

bizarre results, such as children being 

evacuated across a street or to a 

neighbor’s house,’’ and recommended 

that the NRC consider this ‘‘reasonable 

and well thought out petition.’’ 

While supporting the petition, a State 

Representative from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania reiterated the 

petitioner’s observation that there is an 

inconsistency in the treatment of host 

school pick-up centers and general 

population relocation centers. Although 

host school pick-up centers may be just 

outside the 10-mile radiation exposure 

boundary zone, the commenter noted 

that ‘‘general population relocation 

centers * * * according to NRC and 

DHS/FEMA regulations, are required to 

be at least 5 miles and recommended to 

be at least 10 miles beyond’’ the EPZ. 

A representative of a public advocacy 

group, Beyond Nuclear, supported the 

TMIA petition, but stated that the 

relocation centers are also designed to 

be ‘‘decontamination centers’’ and 

‘‘reunification locations’’ and should be 

located at least ‘‘10 to 20 miles beyond 

the currently designated 50 mile radius 

of the ingestion pathway zone.’’ This 

commenter believes that the 

decontamination and reunification 

centers should be located at least 70 to 

100 miles away from the reactor 

accident site. 

A commenter representing Pilgrim 

Watch submitted two comment letters 

that differed only in the list of 

organizations and individuals cited as 

supporting the comments submitted. In 

addition to supporting the TMIA 

petition, the commenter cited several 

reasons for his opinion that NRC 

emergency planning regulations are not 

soundly based. The commenter believes 

that the 10-mile EPZ established by the 

NRC is arbitrary and that the NRC has 

relied on outdated and inappropriate 

radiation plume distribution models to 

justify emergency planning regulations 

and guidance regarding the placement 

of relocation centers. 

The Environmental Coalition on 

Nuclear Power and the Sierra Club 

Pennsylvania Chapter endorse the TMIA 

petition but further comment that ‘‘the 

additional five to ten miles of protective 

distance would be inadequately 

protective for children.’’ These 

organizations cited the magnitude of 

potential releases, weather and travel 

conditions, time of day, and other 

factors as conditions that should be 

considered in siting the collection and 

relocation centers. 

Comment Opposed to Granting the 

Petition 

One commenter, representing the 

State of Tennessee, Tennessee 

Emergency Management Agency 

Program, opposed granting the petition. 

This commenter believes that it is not 

practical or wise to extend the distance 

for relocating children an additional 5 to 

10 miles beyond the EPZ. He noted that 

the same buses will be needed for the 

evacuation during the general 

emergency and that greater distances of 

travel for school children increase the 

chance for a bus accident. 

NRC Evaluation 

The petitioner asserted that 

‘‘according to the NRC regulations listed 

in NUREG–0654r1, general population 

relocation centers are required to be 

located at least 5 miles beyond the 

radiation plume exposure boundary 

zone’’ and that the absence of such a 

requirement for host school pick-up 

centers constitutes a ‘‘regulatory gap.’’ 

The NRC does not agree with the 

petitioner’s statement of concern. 

NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1, 

does not contain NRC regulations or 

requirements. Regulatory Guide 1.101, 

Revision 4, ‘‘Emergency Planning and 

Preparedness for Nuclear Power 

Reactors,’’ issued July 2003 

(ML032020276), identifies NUREG– 

0654/FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1 as an 

acceptable method for showing 

compliance with the Commission’s 

emergency preparedness regulations. 

The NRC uses the methods described in 

this guide, including NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1, to evaluate 

emergency plans for nuclear power 

reactors. As with all NRC regulatory 

guidance, compliance is not required 

and applicants or licensees may propose 

alternative methods of complying with 

the requirements. Similarly, the NRC 

recognizes that FEMA may find 

alternatives used by State and local 

governments to be acceptable means for 

meeting the planning standards and the 

evaluation criteria in NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1, Rev 1. 

Section II.J of NUREG–0654/FEMA– 

REP–1, Rev. 1, provides evaluation 

criteria for the planning standard in 10 

CFR 50.47(b)(10), which addresses 

protective measures for ‘‘emergency 

workers and the public.’’ Although the 

NRC has not defined ‘‘public,’’ it is 

generally understood that it includes all 

segments of the population including 

school children. Section II.J.10 requires 

that an organization’s plan to implement 

protective measures may include 

various capabilities and resources. 

Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.h in 

NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–1, Rev 1, 

provides for the establishment of 

relocation centers (also known as 

‘‘reception centers’’) where evacuees are 

monitored, decontaminated (if 

necessary), and registered. Evaluation 

Criterion II.J.10.h provides that these 

facilities should be located at least 5 

miles and preferably 10 miles beyond 

the boundaries of the EPZ. The NRC 

notes that, in the absence of 

exclusionary modifiers, this criterion 

applies to relocation centers for all 

segments of the population including 

school children. Furthermore, FEMA 

Guidance Memorandum EV–2, 

‘‘Protective Actions for School 

Children,’’ provides for temporary 

sheltering outside the EPZ in host 

schools (or ‘‘host school pick-up 

centers’’ or ‘‘evacuation centers’’) with 

no further stipulation regarding distance 

beyond the EPZ. 

The NRC intentionally used broad 

language in the planning standards of 10 

CFR 50.47(b) because they apply to 

applicants, licensees, State 

governments, and local governments. 

The planning standards do not contain 

prescriptive requirements but instead 

give the organizations the flexibility to 

develop plans and procedures that best 

fit their specific needs and the needs of 

the affected public that they are charged 

with protecting. The NRC and FEMA 

believe that numeric criteria, such as the 

minimum distance to a relocation 

center, properly belong in regulatory 

guidance. Because the existing 

regulatory structure already has 

minimum distance criteria for relocation 

centers for all segments of the 

population, including school children, 

no revision to 10 CFR part 50 is 

necessary in response to the petitioner’s 

request. 

In accordance with the NRC and 

FEMA MOU (44 CFR part 353), the NRC 

forwarded a copy of this petition to, and 

has discussed the petitioner’s request 

with, FEMA. Subsequently, in a May 14, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
5190 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices 

2008, letter to Mr. Anthony C. 

McMurtray (NRC) (ML081570134); Ms. 

Vanessa E. Quinn (FEMA) stated that 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 

current practice of designating host 

schools for temporary sheltering of 

school children at locations outside the 

EPZ conforms with existing FEMA 

guidance. The FEMA letter clarifies that 

host schools are pre-designated sites 

outside the EPZ specifically designed to 

receive and provide temporary shelter to 

evacuated students outside the EPZ 

until their parents or guardians regain 

custody of them. Host schools are 

generally located in the same school 

district as the primary school to make it 

easy for parents or guardians to pick up 

their students. If a parent or guardian 

has not picked up his or her student, the 

student is then transported to a 

relocation center for longer term 

protection and care. As such, these 

designated sites do not serve as 

relocation centers as identified in 

Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.h and, 

therefore, do not need to meet the siting 

criteria that apply to a relocation center. 

The NRC observes that the schools 

specifically identified in the petition are 

all located in the West Shore School 

District. Based upon information 

provided to the community in the 2008– 

2009 West Shore School District 

Handbook (ML082890467), the NRC has 

determined that the district 

encompasses communities and schools 

within and outside of the EPZ. The West 

Shore District planning designates four 

West Shore District schools, all located 

outside the EPZ, as evacuation centers. 

Students at these four schools that 

reside within the EPZ would remain 

there until their parents or guardians 

pick them up. For two of the four 

schools, students who reside outside the 

EPZ would be sent home when buses 

were available provided that it was safe 

to do so. Students at other West Shore 

District schools located within the EPZ 

would be evacuated to one of the four 

designated evacuation centers to wait 

for their parents or guardians to pick 

them up. In its May 14, 2008, letter, 

FEMA stated that the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania’s current practice of 

designating host schools for temporary 

sheltering of school children at 

locations outside the EPZ conforms with 

existing FEMA guidance. 

The emergency planning basis 

provided in NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP– 

1, Rev. 1, summarizes the 

considerations that went into the 

establishment of the 10-mile EPZ. This 

basis provides that it would be unlikely 

that any protective action would be 

required beyond the EPZ and that the 

detailed planning for the EPZ would 

provide a substantial base for expansion 

of response efforts in the event of a 

highly unlikely worse case accident. 

The location of the relocation center 

that is stipulated in Evaluation Criterion 

II.J.10.h is generally based on avoiding 

the need to evacuate a relocation center 

in the unlikely event that it became 

necessary to expand protective actions 

beyond 10 miles. Host schools are not 

similarly affected because they are only 

a temporary arrangement until parents 

or guardians pick up their students. As 

such, the petitioner’s request to apply 

the numeric criteria of Evaluation 

Criterion II.J.10.h to host schools that 

are used solely as evacuation pick-up 

sites is unwarranted. 

The petitioner asserted that host 

schools that are located close to the EPZ 

do not provide the same level of 

protection as would facilities that are 

located further beyond the EPZ. 

Although the NRC agrees that radiation 

exposure decreases with increasing 

distance, the impact of the exposure on 

the persons exposed to the radiation is 

also a function of the duration of the 

exposure. As indicated in the May 14, 

2008, FEMA letter, host school pick-up 

centers are only pick up points, and any 

students whose parents or guardians 

have not picked them up would be 

transported to a reception center. Thus, 

the duration of the students’ stay at a 

host school is expected to be short, after 

which their parents or guardians would 

evacuate them further to the relocation 

center or to other individually arranged 

locations (e.g., residences of friends, 

hotels). The NRC notes that these host 

schools are located in residential 

communities outside of the EPZ. 

According to NUREG–0654/FEMA– 

REP–1, Rev. 1, protective actions would 

not likely be required beyond the EPZ. 

Thus, students in these host schools 

would be afforded the same level of 

protection as that of the other residents 

in that community. As noted on the 

Pennsylvania Emergency Management 

Agency’s Web site at http:// 

www.pema.state.pa.us/pema/cwp/ 

view.asp?A=566&Q=254894, school 

children are usually relocated before the 

evacuation of the general public as a 

precautionary measure, which further 

increases the likelihood that parents or 

guardians will have picked up their 

school children before the onset of a 

radioactive release. 

Based upon this evaluation of the 

petitioner’s request and in consultation 

with FEMA, the NRC has found no 

sufficient basis to question the adequacy 

of FEMA guidance and findings 

regarding the adequacy of the protective 

action arrangements for school children. 

This finding, in conjunction with the 

finding that the existing regulations and 

regulatory guidance are adequate, is the 

basis for the Commission’s decision to 

deny the petitioner’s request. 

Consistent with the reasons provided 

above for denying the petition, the NRC 

finds that the commenters do not 

present evidence to compel the NRC to 

consider seeking changes to the existing 

regulatory structure. In addition, 

commenters raised two issues that 

concern the size of the EPZ and the 

distance of the host schools from the 

EPZ that is required to provide adequate 

safety to school children. The NRC 

notes that although these issues exceed 

the scope of the petition, the existing 

regulations and guidance provide 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection for all members of the public 

in the event of a radiological incident at 

a nuclear power plant. 

One commenter stated, without 

providing specific examples, that ‘‘many 

host pick-up schools are located within 

[the EPZ].’’ The petition does not make 

this claim and includes information 

from the West Shore School District 

explaining that all of the host school 

pick-up centers ‘‘are outside the ten[- 

]mile zone from TMI [Three Mile 

Island].’’ 

Another commenter identified an 

implementation issue that may be 

encountered in the event that host 

school pick-up centers are sited an 

additional distance beyond the EPZ. 

Because FEMA reviews the adequacy of 

offsite emergency plans and 

preparedness and the capabilities of 

State and local governments to 

effectively implement these plans and 

preparedness measures and because the 

NRC reviews FEMA findings and 

determinations, the current regulatory 

structure already addresses the issue 

highlighted by the commenter. 

Reason for Denial 

The Commission is denying PRM–50– 

85 submitted by Mr. Epstein of TMIA. 

Current NRC regulations and NRC and 

FEMA regulatory guidance provide 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection of all members of the public, 

including school children, in the event 

of a nuclear power plant incident. 

Because it is prescriptive in nature and 

existing regulations and guidance 

already cover the petitioner’s request, 

PRM–50–85 is hereby denied. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of January 2009. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices 5191 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–1904 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278; NRC– 

2009–0033] 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, 

‘‘Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown 

Capability,’’ for the use of operator 

manual actions in lieu of the 

requirements specified in Section III.G.2 

as requested by Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC, (the licensee, in 

addition to PSEG Nuclear, LLC) for 

operation of Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 

located in York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by 

10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would grant an 

exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

R, Section III.G.2 for 25 operator manual 

actions contained in the licensee’s Fire 

Protection Program (FPP). The licensee’s 

FPP requires that the identified operator 

manual actions be performed outside of 

the control room to achieve shutdown 

following fires in certain fire areas. The 

licensee states that each of the manual 

actions were subjected to a manual 

action feasibility review for PBAPS that 

determined that the manual actions are 

feasible and can be readily performed. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

October 5, 2007, as supplemented on 

May 1 and December 11, 2008 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession Numbers ML072820129, 

ML081220873 and ML083470170, 

respectively). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed exemption from 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix R, was submitted in 

response to the need for an exemption 

as identified by NRC Regulatory 

Information Summary (RIS) 2006–10, 

‘‘Regulatory Expectations with 

Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator 

Manual Actions.’’ The RIS noted that 

NRC inspections identified that some 

licensees had relied upon operator 

manual actions, instead of the options 

specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

R, Section III.G.2, as a permanent 

solution to resolve issues related to 

Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers. The 

licensee indicates that the operator 

manual actions, referenced in the 

October 5, 2007, application, were 

previously included in correspondence 

with the NRC and found acceptable in 

a fire protection-related Safety 

Evaluation (1993 SE) dated September 

16, 1993 (ADAMS Accession Number 

ML081690220). However, RIS 2006–10 

identifies that an exemption under 10 

CFR Part 50.12 is necessary for use of 

the manual actions in lieu of the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G.2, even if the 

NRC previously issued a safety 

evaluation found the manual actions 

acceptable. The proposed exemption 

provides the formal vehicle for NRC 

approval for the use of the specified 

operator manual actions instead of the 

options specified in 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G.2. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action and 

concludes that the exemption will not 

present an undue risk to the public 

health and safety. The details of the 

NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided in the exemption that will be 

issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving the exemption to the 

regulation. 

In the 1993 SE, the NRC staff 

evaluated the operator manual actions 

presented in the proposed exemption, 

and found that they maintained a safe 

shutdown capability that satisfies the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G. In addition, 

the licensee supplemented the October 

5, 2007, request for exemption with 

additional information in a letter dated 

December 11, 2008, to confirm that the 

operator manual actions addressed in 

the 1993 SE are feasible and that the 

safety basis for these actions remains 

valid. Therefore, the proposed action 

will not significantly increase the 

probability or consequences of 

accidents. No changes are being made in 

the types of effluents that may be 

released offsite. There is no significant 

increase in the amount of any effluent 

released offsite. There is no significant 

increase in occupational or public 

radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 

no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. The NRC staff, 

thus, concludes that granting the 

proposed exemption would result in no 

significant radiological environmental 

impact. 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for PBAPS 

Units 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and 

for PBAPS Units 2 and 3, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ 

(NUREG–1437, Supplement 10), dated 

January 2003. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on August 8, 2008, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Pennsylvania State 

official, Dennis Dyckman of the 

Pennsylvania State Department of 

Environmental Protection, regarding the 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action. The State official had no 

comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES