Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44593 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Retirement. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director, Office of Personnel Management. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, OPM proposes to amend 5 

CFR part 890 as follows: 

PART 890—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for part 890 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8913; 890.803 also 

issued under 50 U.S.C. 403p, 22 U.S.C. 4069c 

and 4069c–1; subpart L also issued under 

sec. 599C of Pub. L. 101–513, 104 Stat. 2064, 

as amended; § 890.102 also issued under 

sections 11202(f), 11232(e), 11246 (b) and (c) 

of Pub. L. 105–33, 111 Stat. 251; and section 

721 of Pub. L. 105–261, 112 Stat. 2061, 

unless otherwise noted. 

2. Section 890.108 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 890.108 Will OPM waive requirements for 

continued coverage during retirement? 

(a) Under 5 U.S.C. 8905(b), OPM may 

waive the eligibility requirements for 

health benefits coverage as an annuitant 

for an individual when, in its sole 

discretion, it determines that due to 

exceptional circumstances it would be 

against equity and good conscience not 

to allow a person to be enrolled in the 

FEHB Program as an annuitant. 

(b) The individual’s failure to satisfy 

the eligibility requirements must be due 

to exceptional circumstances. An 

individual requesting a waiver must 

provide OPM with evidence that: 

(1) The individual intended to have 

FEHB coverage as an annuitant (retiree); 

(2) The circumstances that prevented 

the individual from meeting the 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 8905(b) were 

beyond the individual’s control; and 

(3) The individual acted reasonably to 

protect his or her right to continue 

coverage into retirement. 

[FR Doc. E6–12782 Filed 8–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6329–39–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. PRM–50–79] 

Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial 

of Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is republishing its 

December 19, 2005 notice (70 FR 75085) 

denying a petition for rulemaking 

submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian 

and 3,000 co-signers on September 4, 

2002, to correct errors and clarify the 

NRC’s regulatory position. These 

changes do not affect the Commission’s 

denial of the petition. The petition was 

docketed by the NRC on September 23, 

2002, and was assigned Docket No. 

PRM–50–79. The petition requests that 

the NRC amend its regulations regarding 

offsite state and local government 

emergency plans for nuclear power 

plants to ensure that all day care centers 

and nursery schools in the Emergency 

Planning Zone (EPZ) of nuclear power 

facilities are properly protected in the 

event of a radiological emergency. 

ADDRESSES: Publicly available 

documents related to this petition, 

including the petition for rulemaking, 

public comments received, and the 

NRC’s letter of denial to the petitioner, 

may be viewed electronically on public 

computers in the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), 01 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. Selected 

documents, including comments, may 

be viewed and downloaded 

electronically via the NRC rulemaking 

Web site at: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are also available electronically 

at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

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

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing in the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

reference staff at (800) 387–4209, (301) 

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

(301) 415–3224, e-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In December 1979, the President 

directed the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), now part 

of the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), to lead state and local 

emergency planning and preparedness 

activities with respect to jurisdictions in 

proximity to nuclear reactors. FEMA has 

responsibilities under Executive Order 

12148, issued on July 15, 1979, to 

establish federal regulations and 

policies and to coordinate civil 

emergency planning within emergency 

preparedness programs. Consequently, 

FEMA is the lead authority concerning 

the direction, recommendations, and 

determinations with regard to offsite 

state and local government radiological 

emergency planning efforts necessary 

for the public health and safety. FEMA 

sends its findings to the NRC for final 

determinations. FEMA implemented 

Executive Order 12148 in its regulations 

outlined in 44 CFR part 350. Within the 

framework of authority created by 

Executive Order 12148, FEMA also 

entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) (58 FR 47966, 

September 9, 1993) with the NRC to 

provide acceptance criteria for and 

determinations as to whether state and 

local government emergency plans are 

adequate and capable of being 

implemented to ensure public health 

and safety. FEMA’s regulations are 

further amplified by FEMA Guidance 

Memorandum (GM) EV–2, ‘‘Protective 

Actions for School Children,’’ and the 

‘‘Radiological Emergency Preparedness 

Exercise Evaluation Methodology’’ (67 

FR 20580 dated April 25, 2002). 

The Commission’s emergency 

planning regulations for nuclear power 

reactors are contained in 10 CFR part 

50, specifically § 50.33(g), 50.47, 50.54 

and Appendix E. As stated in 10 CFR 

50.47(a)(1), in order to issue an initial 

operating license, the NRC must make a 

finding ‘‘that there is reasonable 

assurance that adequate protective 

measures can and will be taken in the 

event of a radiological emergency’’ to 

protect the public health and safety. An 

acceptable way of meeting the NRC’s 

emergency planning requirements is 

contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 

1.101, Rev. 4, ‘‘Emergency Planning and 

Preparedness for Nuclear Power 

Reactors’’ (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML032020276). This guidance 

document endorses NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1, ‘‘Criteria for 

Preparation and Evaluation of 

Radiological Emergency Response Plans 

and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear 

Power Plants’’ (ML040420012; 

Addenda: ML021050240), an NRC and 

FEMA joint guidance document 

intended to provide nuclear facility 

operators and Federal, state, and local 

government agencies with acceptance 

criteria and guidance on the creation 

and review of radiological emergency 

plans. Together, RG 1.101, Rev. 4; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
44594 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

NUREG–0654, Rev. 1, provide guidance 

to licensees and applicants on methods 

acceptable to the NRC staff for 

complying with the Commission’s 

regulations for emergency response 

plans and preparedness at nuclear 

power reactors. 

Emergency plans for all nuclear 

power reactors are required under part 

50, as amplified by NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1 and applicable FEMA 

guidance documents, to have specific 

provisions for all ‘‘special facility 

populations,’’ which refers not only to 

pre-schools, nursery schools, and day 

care centers, but all kindergarten 

through twelfth grade (K–12) students, 

nursing homes, group homes for 

physically or mentally challenged 

individuals and those who are mobility 

challenged, as well as those in 

correctional facilities. FEMA GM 24, 

‘‘Radiological Emergency Preparedness 

for Handicapped Persons,’’ dated April 

5, 1984, and GM EV–2, ‘‘Protective 

Actions for School Children,’’ dated 

November 13, 1986, provide further 

guidance. These specific plans should, 

at a minimum: 

• Identify the population of such 

facilities; 

• Determine and provide protective 

actions for these populations; 

• Establish and maintain notification 

methods for these facilities; and 

• Determine and provide for 

transportation and relocation. 

State and local Emergency Operations 

Plans and procedures are initially and 

periodically evaluated by FEMA. The 

plans are tested in a biennial emergency 

preparedness exercise conducted for 

each nuclear power station. If plans or 

procedures are found to be inadequate, 

they must be corrected. 

The NRC emergency preparedness 

regulations are predicated on State and 

local governments that participate in 

emergency planning assuming overall 

responsibility for ensuring the 

performance of off-site planning and 

preparedness activities. This predicate 

is appropriate since State and local 

governments have responsibility for 

public health and safety, and the 

authority to take actions to protect the 

public during an emergency. A 

radiological emergency is but one of the 

hazards for which a State and its local 

government entities may prepare. 

Emergency response is intended to be 

primarily local; the planning for that 

response must similarly reflect local 

capabilities, constraints, organizational 

relationships, statutes, regulations, and 

ordinance. The Commission’s 

emergency preparedness regulations 

allow a finding of reasonable assurance 

that adequate protective measures can 

and will be taken during a radiological 

emergency where a State or local 

government tasks a non-governmental 

entity with emergency planning, 

preparedness, or response activities 

responsive to the planning standards of 

10 CFR 50.47(b), provided that the 

overall responsibility for demonstrating, 

with reasonable assurance, that 

adequate protective measures can and 

will be taken in the event of a 

radiological emergency continues to 

remain with the State and local 

governments. 

Onsite and offsite emergency response 

plans for nuclear power plants are 

evaluated against the planning 

standards established in 10 CFR 

50.47(b) and 44 CFR part 350, as 

informed by supporting regulatory 

guidance and case law. The NRC and 

FEMA jointly developed NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1, ‘‘Criteria for Preparation 

and Evaluation of Radiological 

Emergency Response Plans and 

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear 

Power Plants,’’ to provide guidance and 

acceptance criteria for the development 

of licensee and State and local 

government emergency plans. NUREG–

0654/FEMA–REP–1 is incorporated by 

reference in 44 CFR 350.5 and the 

planning standards and related criteria 

therein are used by FEMA (now part of 

DHS) to review, evaluate, and approve 

State and local radiological emergency 

plans and preparedness. FEMA 

Guidance Memorandum (GM) EV–2, 

‘‘Protective Actions for School 

Children,’’ identifies methods 

acceptable to DHS (previously FEMA) 

for showing compliance with the 

planning standards and evaluation 

criteria, to the extent they apply to 

school children. Methods different from 

those identified in GM–EV–2 can be 

found acceptable if they provide an 

adequate basis for FEMA to determine 

that the planning standards and 

evaluation criteria are met. The NRC 

will then base its licensing decisions, 

with regard to offsite emergency 

planning, on a review of the FEMA 

findings. 

The petition denial references GM–

EV–2 in several locations as an example 

of existing regulatory guidance that 

satisfies the intent of the individual 

petition requests. However, the 

Commission recognizes that DHS may 

find alternatives, other than those 

identified in GM–EV–2, to be acceptable 

means for meeting the planning 

standards and the evaluation criteria in 

NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–1. 

Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents 

identified below available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following: 

Public Document Room (PDR). The 

NRC Public Document Room is located 

at 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File 

Area O–1 F21, Rockville, Maryland. 

Copies of publicly available NRC 

documents related to this petition can 

be viewed electronically on public 

computers in the PDR. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will make 

copies of documents for a fee. 

Rulemaking Web site (Web). The 

NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web site 

is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Selected documents may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via this Web 

site. 

The NRC’s Public Electronic Reading 

Room (ADAMS). The NRC’s public 

Electronic Reading Room is located at 

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

adams.html. Through this site, the 

public can gain access to the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System, which provides 

text and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. 

NRC Staff Contact (NRC Staff). For 

single copies of documents not available 

in an electronic file format, contact 

Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

(301) 415–3224, e-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov. 

Document PDR Web ADAMS NRC staff 

Petition for Rulemaking (PRM–50–79) ............................................................ X X ML023110466 ........................

Federal Register Notice—Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking (67 FR 

66588; Nov. 1, 2002) ................................................................................... X X ML023050008 ........................

Federal Register Notice—Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking; Correction 

(67 FR 67800; Nov. 7, 2002) ....................................................................... X X ML040770516 ........................

Public Comments, Part 1 and 2 ...................................................................... X X ML040770480 ........................

Public Comments, Part 2 of 2 ......................................................................... X X ML040770544 ........................

Additional Public Comments ............................................................................ ........................ X ML041910013 ........................


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44595 

Document PDR Web ADAMS NRC staff 

Letter of Denial to the Petitioners .................................................................... X X ML053260004 ........................

Public Comment (PEMA) on Dec. 19, 2005 FRN ........................................... X X ML060680076 ........................

Public Comment (DHS/FEMA) on Dec. 19, 2005 FRN ................................... X X ML060860342 

ML060730534 

........................

REG 1.101, Rev. 4, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear 

Power Reactors (July 2003) ........................................................................ X ........................ ML032020276 ........................

NUREG–0654/FEMA REP–1, Rev. 1 Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation 

of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (November 1980) .......................................... X ........................ ML040420012 ........................

NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1 Addenda (March 2002) ....................... X ........................ ML021050240 ........................

Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management (July 20, 1979) ... X ........................ ........................ ........................

MOU Between FEMA and NRC Relating to Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness (June 17, 1993) ..................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

FEMA GM 24, Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons (April 5, 1984) ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Exercise Methodology (66 FR 

47526—September 12, 2001 and 67 FR 20580–April 25, 2002) ................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

FEMA GM EV–2, Protective Actions for School Children (November 13, 

1986) ............................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

The Petitioners’ Request 

This petition for rulemaking (PRM–

50–79) generally requests that the NRC 

establish new rules requiring that 

emergency planning for day care centers 

and nursery schools located in the 

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) be in 

clued in the state and local government 

offsite emergency plans of all NRC 

nuclear power facility licensees. More 

specifically, the petition requests that 

the NRC amend its regulations to ensure 

that all children attending day care 

centers and nursery schools within the 

EPZ are: 

A. Assigned to designated relocation 

centers established safely outside of the 

EPZ. 

B. Provided with designated 

transportation to a relocation center in 

the event of an emergency evaluation. 

C. Transported in approved childsafety seats that meet state and federal 

laws as they pertain to the 

transportation of children and infants 

under 50 pounds in weight or 4 feet 9 

inches to height. 

The petitioners also request that the 

following be mandated by NRC 

regulations: 

D. The creation and maintenance of 

working rosters of emergency bus 

drivers and back-up drivers for day care 

center and nursery school evacuation 

vehicles, and the establishment of a 

system for notifying these individuals in 

the event of a radiological emergency. 

These rosters should bed regularly 

checked and updated, with a designated 

back-up driver listed for each vehicle 

and route. 

E. Notification of emergency 

management officials by individual 

preschools as to the details of each 

institution’s radiological emergency 

plan. 

F. Annual site inspections of day care 

centers and nursery schools within the 

evacuation zone by emergency 

management officials. 

G. Participation of day care centers 

and nursery schools within the EPZ in 

radiological emergency preparedness 

exercises designed to determine each 

institution’s state of readiness. 

H. Creation of identification cards, 

school attendance lists, and fingerprint 

records for all children who are to be 

transported to a relocation center, to 

ensure no child is left behind or is 

unable, due to age, to communicate his 

or her contact information to emergency 

workers. 

I. Development by emergency 

management officials of educational 

materials for parents, informing them 

what will happen to their children in 

case of a radiological emergency, and 

where their children can be picked up 

after an emergency evacuation. 

J. Stocking of potassium iodide (KI) 

pills and appropriate educational 

materials at all day care centers and 

nursery schools within the EPZ. 

K. Radiological emergency 

preparedness training for all day care 

center and nursery school employees 

within the EPZ. 

L. Listing of designated relocation 

centers for day care centers and nursery 

schools in area phone directories, so 

that parents can quickly and easily find 

where their children will be sent in case 

of a radiological emergency. 

M. Establishment of toll-free or 911- 

type telephone lines to provide 

information about radiological 

emergency plans and procedures for day 

care centers and nursery schools within 

the EPZ. 

N. Creation of written scripts for use 

by the local Emergency Alert System 

(EAS) that include information about 

evacuation plans and designated 

relocation centers for day care centers 

and nursery schools. 

Public Comments 

The NRC received 55 public comment 

letters relating to this petition. Twentythree letters supported granting the 

petition (mostly from citizens including 

three letters with 410 signatures), while 

30 letters requested that the petition be 

denied. Those letters that supported 

denial of the petition were primarily 

from state and local governmental 

agencies, FEMA, and licensees. In 

addition, the NRC received a letter that 

discussed KI but did not take a position 

on the petition and a letter that strongly 

supports the development of all-hazards 

emergency plans for child day care 

facilities and nursery schools 

throughout the state but did not take a 

position on the petition. Subsequent to 

the December 19, 2005 notice of denial, 

the NRC received two letters and an Email commenting on errors and 

potential mischaracterizations in the 

published denial. 

More specifically; 

23 Letters supporting the granting of 

the petition: 

13 Comment letters from citizens 

supporting the granting of the petition. 

1 Comment letter from a citizens 

group supporting the granting of the 

petition. 

4 Comment letters from local 

governmental agencies or officials 

supporting the petition. 

3 Comment letters with 410 

signatures supporting the petition. 

1 Letter from the petitioner 

supporting the petition. The petitioner 

also ‘‘suggests a federal model that 

mirrors the Illinois, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, or Nebraska—***’’

emergency plans for day care centers 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
44596 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

and nursery schools, even though those 

state plans only meet about 30 percent 

of the elements requested by the 

petitioner, while meeting FEMA 

guidance. 

1 Letter from eight local 

governments that agreed with the 

concepts of the petition but had 

reservations about some of the specific 

requests of the petitioners. 

30 Letters asking the Commission to 

deny the petition: 

4 Letters from two local 

governments located near the 

petitioners, and from two citizens to 

deny the petition but suggested that the 

day care centers and nursery schools 

should be responsible for developing 

their own emergency plans. 

8 Letters from local governmental 

agencies to deny the petition for 

rulemaking because they felt that 

current regulations are adequate. 

12 Letters from State governments 

including two letters from FEMA 

(Headquarters and Region 7) to deny the 

petition, based on the opinion that the 

petitioners’ requests are adequately 

addressed in current regulations and 

guidance. 

4 Letters from licensees or 

companies that own nuclear utilities, to 

deny the petition. 

1 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 

letter to deny the petition. 

1 Letter representing six licensees 

to deny the petition. 

1 Letter that discusses KI, but does 

not take a position on the petition. 

1 Letter from the Special Assistant 

to the Governor of Pennsylvania 

withdrawing an earlier submitted letter 

and strongly supporting the 

development of all-hazards emergency 

plans for child day care facilities and 

nursery schools throughout the state. 

This letter did not express a position on 

the petition and was characterized by 

the NRC as supporting the petition. The 

Director of PEMA, on behalf of the 

Governor’s office, subsequently 

challenged the NRC’s characterization of 

the original letter as supporting the 

petition and requested the 

characterization be formally corrected. 

1 Letter and E-mail from DHS/ 

FEMA commenting on errors and 

potential mischaracterizations within 

the December 19, 2005, Federal Register 

Notice denying the petition. 

NRC Evaluation 

The Commission has reviewed each of 

the petitioners’ requests and provides 

the following analysis: 

1. The petitioners’ first and more 

general request is that day care centers 

and nursery schools, located within the 

10-mile EPZ, be included in state and 

local government offsite emergency 

planning. 

NRC Review 

The current regulatory structure 

already requires that day care centers 

and nursery schools be included in the 

offsite emergency planning for nuclear 

power plants. Consequently, no revision 

to 10 CFR part 50 is necessary. The 

Commission’s emergency planning 

regulations, in 10 CFR 50.47, require the 

NRC to make a finding, before issuing 

an initial operating license, that there is 

‘‘reasonable assurance that adequate 

protective measures can and will be 

taken in the event of a radiological 

emergency.’’ Implicit in this regulation 

is the requirement that offsite 

emergency plans be protective of all 

members of the public, including 

children attending day care centers and 

nursery schools, within the 10-mile 

EPZ. Joint NRC and FEMA 

implementing guidance, NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1, states that 

emergency plans must provide specific 

means for ‘‘protecting those persons 

whose mobility may be impaired due to 

such factors as institutional or other 

confinement.’’ NUREG–0654, Section 

II.J. and Appendix 4, as well as FEMA 

GM 24, ‘‘Radiological Emergency 

Preparedness for Handicapped 

Persons,’’ dated April 5, 1984, also 

provide guidance. Children in day care 

centers and nursery schools are 

included in the category of persons 

needing special protection. FEMA GM 

EV–2, ‘‘Protective Actions for School 

Children,’’ was issued to provide 

guidance to assist federal officials in 

evaluating adequacy of state and local 

government offsite emergency plans and 

preparedness for protecting school 

children during a radiological 

emergency. This guidance is also 

intended for state and local government 

officials and administrators of public 

and private schools, including licensed 

and government supported pre-schools 

and day care centers, for developing 

emergency response plans and 

preparedness for protecting the health 

and safety of children in their charge. 

FEMA (now part of DHS) is the 

Federal agency responsible for making 

findings and determinations as to 

whether state and local emergency plans 

are adequate and whether there is a 

reasonable assurance that they can be 

implemented. FEMA uses the guidance 

documents discussed above to make 

such findings. The NRC makes its 

finding as to whether the emergency 

plans provide a reasonable assurance 

that adequate protective measures can 

and will be taken under 10 CFR 

50.47(a)(2). The NRC’s findings are 

based upon FEMA findings and 

determinations in this area. The NRC 

would not grant an initial operating 

license if FEMA found that state and 

local government emergency plans did 

not adequately address day care centers 

and nursery schools. In accordance with 

10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii), if significant 

deficiencies in a state or local 

governments’ off-site emergency plan 

were discovered after the operating 

license was issued, and those 

deficiencies were not corrected within 

four months of discovery (or a plan for 

correction was not in place), the 

Commission would determine whether 

the reactor should be shut down until 

the deficiencies are remedied or 

whether some other enforcement action 

would be appropriate. Based on this 

information and considering that the 

existing regulatory structure already has 

requirements addressing the facilities of 

concern to the petitioners, no revision to 

10 CFR part 50 is necessary in response 

to the petitioners’ general request. 

The more specific elements of the 

petition follow: 

A. Require that children attending day 

care centers and nursery schools be 

assigned to designated relocation 

centers established safely outside the 

EPZ. 

NRC Review 

The petitioners’ requested revision to 

10 CFR part 50 is not needed because 

the requested action is already covered 

by FEMA guidance documents. FEMA’s 

GM EV–2 (p. 5) specifies that evacuation 

planning may be developed in three 

contexts: (1) Part of the existing 

radiological emergency plans; (2) a 

separate annex of an existing integrated 

plan for many types of disasters and 

emergencies; or (3) a separate 

evacuation plan for all of the schools in 

each school system. GM EV–2 specifies 

that schools officials should document 

in the plan the basis for determining the 

proper protective action (e.g., 

evacuation, early preparatory measures, 

early evacuation, sheltering, early 

dismissal or combination) including but 

not limited to, the name and location of 

relocation center(s), and transport 

route(s), if applicable and on an 

institution-specific basis. Furthermore, 

GM EV–2 specifies that local 

governments should ensure that 

appropriate organizational officials 

assume responsibility for the emergency 

planning and preparedness for all of the 

identified schools, including day care 

centers and nursery schools. Local 

governments should also ensure that the 

emergency planning undertaken by 

these organizations is integrated within 

the larger offsite emergency 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44597 

management framework for the 

particular nuclear power plant site. 

FEMA assesses offsite emergency plans 

using this guidance when making a 

finding that a plan adequately protects 

the public. Under the MOU between 

FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to 

FEMA’s expertise in offsite emergency 

plan requirements and assessments. 

B. Require that children attending day 

care centers and nursery schools be 

provided with designated transportation 

to relocation centers in the event of an 

emergency evacuation. 

NRC Review 

As previously discussed, FEMA (now 

part of DHS) is the federal agency 

responsible for making findings and 

determinations as to whether state and 

local emergency plans are adequate. 

FEMA’s GM EV–2 (p. 5) specifies that 

school officials should document in 

their plans the basis for determining the 

proper protective action (e.g., 

evacuation, early preparatory measures, 

early evacuation, sheltering, early 

dismissal or combination) including but 

not limited to, the means for effecting 

protective actions and specific resources 

allocated for transportation and 

supporting letters of agreement if 

resources are provided from external 

sources, on an institution-specific basis. 

Furthermore, FEMA’s GM EV–2 

specifies that local governments should 

ensure that appropriate organizational 

officials assume responsibility for the 

emergency planning and preparedness 

for all of the identified schools, 

including day care centers and nursery 

schools. Local governments should also 

ensure that the emergency planning 

undertaken by these organizations is 

integrated within the larger offset 

emergency management framework for 

the particular nuclear power plant site. 

FEMA reviews emergency plans to 

ensure that this provision is addressed. 

Consequently, a revision to 10 CFR part 

50 is not needed. 

C. Require that children attending day 

care centers and nursery schools be 

transported in approved child-safety 

seats that meet state and federal laws as 

they pertain to the transportation of 

children and infants under 50 pounds in 

weight or 4 feet 9 inches in height. 

NRC Review 

Requiring seat belts or child safety 

seats on school buses that may be used 

for evacuating schools is outside NRC 

statutory authority. Such a requirement 

would instead need to be promulgated 

by the Department of Transportation or 

appropriate state authorities. 

D. Require the creation and 

maintenance of working rosters of 

emergency bus drivers and back-up 

drivers for day care center and nursery 

school evacuation vehicles, and the 

establishment of a system for notifying 

these individuals in the event of a 

radiological emergency. These rosters 

should be regularly checked and 

updated, with a designated back-up 

driver listed for each vehicle and route. 

NRC Review 

The petitioners’ requested revision to 

10 CFR part 50 is not needed because 

NRC considers the existing 

requirements and guidance adequate for 

the evaluation of planning with respect 

to transportation resources, including 

drivers. FEMA’s GM EV–2 (pp. 5–6) 

specifies that school officials should 

document in the plan the basis for 

determining the proper protective action 

including: Means for effecting protective 

actions; specific resources allocated for 

transportation and supporting letters of 

agreement if resources are provided 

from external sources; and, means for 

alerting and notifying appropriate 

persons and groups associated with the 

schools and the students, including the 

method for contacting and activating 

designated dispatchers and school bus 

drivers. Under the MOU between FEMA 

and the NRC, the NRC defers to FEMA’s 

(now part of DHS) expertise in state and 

local emergency plan requirements and 

assessments. FEMA recently completed 

an emergency preparedness exercise at 

TMI and issued a final report on August 

4, 2005. FEMA identified no 

deficiencies in this particular area. 

E. Require notification of emergency 

management officials by individual 

preschools as to the details of each 

institution’s radiological emergency 

plan. 

NRC Review 

NRC considers that current NRC and 

FEMA (now part of DHS) requirements 

and guidance are adequate. FEMA’s GM 

EV–2 (p. 5) identifies criteria by which 

an emergency plan will typically be 

acceptable if it fully addresses the 

emergency functions for the evacuation 

of, or other appropriate protective 

measures, for school children including 

licensed and government supported preschools and day care centers. 

Accordingly, local government should 

take the initiative to identify and 

contact all public and private school 

systems, including day care centers and 

nursery schools, within the designated 

plume exposure pathway EPZ to assure 

that both public and private school 

officials address appropriate planning 

for protecting the health and safety of 

their students from a commercial 

nuclear power plant accident. 

The planning of both the public and 

private school officials should be 

closely coordinated with that of the 

local government. Local governments 

should ensure that appropriate 

organizational officials assume 

responsibility for the emergency 

planning and preparedness for all of the 

identified schools. Local governments 

should also ensure that the emergency 

planning undertaken by these 

organizations is integrated within the 

larger offsite emergency management 

framework for the particular nuclear 

power plant site. 

As mentioned previously in response 

to issue ‘‘A’’, the evacuation planning 

may be developed in three contexts: (1) 

Part of the existing radiological 

emergency plans; (2) a separate annex of 

an existing integrated plan for many 

types of disasters and emergencies; or 

(3) a separate evacuation plan for all of 

the schools in each school system. GM 

EV–2 specifies that school officials 

should document in the plan the basis 

for determining the proper protective 

action (e.g., evacuation, early 

preparatory measures, early evacuation, 

sheltering, early dismissal or 

combination) including: 

• Identification of the organization 

and officials responsible for both 

planning and effecting the protective 

action. 

• Institution-specific information: 

—Name and location of school; 

—Type of school and age grouping (e.g., 

public elementary school, grades 

kindergarten through sixth); 

—Total population (students, faculty, 

and other employees); 

—Means for implementing protective 

actions; 

—Specific resources allocated for 

transportation and supporting letters 

of agreement if resources are provided 

from external sources; and 

—Name and location of relocation 

center(s) and transport route(s), if 

applicable. 

• If parts of the institution-specific 

information apply to many or all 

schools, then the information may be 

presented generically. 

• Time frames for effecting the 

protective actions. 

• Means for alerting and notifying 

appropriate persons and groups 

associated with the schools and the 

students including: 

—Identification of the organization 

responsible for providing emergency 

information to the schools; 

—The method (e.g., siren and telephone 

calls) for contacting and providing 

emergency information on 

recommended protective actions to 

school officials; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
44598 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1See March 23, 2005 letter from Roy Zimmerman 

to Eric J. Epstein and March 24, 2005 letter from 

Roy Zimmerman to Lawrence T. Christian 

(available on NRC’s ADAMS document system 

under the accession numbers ML050590344 and 

ML050590357, respectively). 

—The method (e.g., siren, tone-alert 

radios, and telephone calls) for 

contacting and activating designated 

dispatchers and school bus drivers; 

and 

—The method (e.g., Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) messages) for notifying 

parents and guardians of the status 

and location of their children. 

Based on the above, the petitioners’

requested revision to 10 CFR part 50 is 

not required. 

F. Require annual site inspections of 

day care centers and nursery schools 

within the evacuation zone by 

emergency management officials. 

NRC Review 

Inspections of day care centers and 

nursery schools are the responsibility of 

the individual state and are outside NRC 

statutory authority. The Commission 

sees no safety reason within the scope 

of its statutory authority to require 

annual inspections of day care centers 

and nursery schools. 

G. Require the participation of day 

care centers and nursery schools within 

the EPZ in radiological emergency 

preparedness exercises designed to 

determine each institution’s state of 

readiness. 

NRC Review 

Current NRC regulations in 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix E, Section F.2, permit 

exercises without public (including day 

care centers and nursery schools) 

participation. The Commission has 

determined that exercises can be 

adequately evaluated without the 

participation of schools or members of 

the public. This eliminates safety 

concerns for students, as well as the 

disruption of day care center and 

nursery school activities that might arise 

during exercise participation. In 

addition, as mentioned in the response 

to request ‘‘E,’’ pursuant to FEMA (now 

part of DHS) guidance, governments 

should take the initiative to identify and 

contact all public and private school 

systems, including day care centers and 

nursery schools, within the designated 

plume exposure pathway EPZ to assure 

that both public and private school 

officials address appropriate planning 

for protecting the health and safety of 

their students from a commercial 

nuclear power plant accident. The 

petition has presented no evidence that 

would cause the NRC to reconsider this 

determination. 

H. Require creation of identification 

cards, school attendance lists, and 

fingerprint records for all children who 

are to be transported to a relocation 

center, to ensure no child is left behind 

or is unable, due to age, to communicate 

his or her contact information to 

emergency workers. 

NRC Review 

State and local governments have the 

responsibility for ensuring that licensed 

day care centers and nursery schools 

have mechanisms in place for 

maintaining child accountability. FEMA 

(now part of DHS), as the authority on 

offsite emergency planning, has 

determined that it is unnecessary to 

require that such detailed mechanisms 

be a component of emergency plans. 

The Commission finds no safety reason 

to justify requiring such detailed 

mechanisms in its regulations. 

I. Require development by emergency 

management officials of educational 

materials for parents, informing them 

what will happen to their children in 

case of a radiological emergency, and 

where their children can be picked up 

after an emergency evacuation. 

NRC Review 

Current NRC and FEMA requirements 

and guidance adequately address this 

specific request. FEMA’s GM EV–2 (p. 

2) specifies that the Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) notify parents of the 

status and location of their children in 

the event of an emergency. The 

Commission believes that parental 

notification via the EAS is adequate to 

assure that parents will be informed of 

their children’s location following an 

emergency evacuation. 

J. Require socking of KI pills and 

appropriate educational materials at all 

day care centers and nursery schools 

within the 10-mile EPZ. 

NRC Review 

The Commission’s regulations, 

specifically 10 CFR 50.47b.(10), require 

individual states to consider using KI in 

the event of an emergency. The 

regulations require that a range of 

protective actions be developed for the 

plume exposure pathway EPZ for 

emergency workers and the public. In 

developing this range of actions, 

consideration was to be given to 

evacuation, sheltering, and, as a 

supplement to these, the prophylactic 

use of KI, as appropriate. Under this 

regulation, each individual state must 

decide whether the stockpiling of KI is 

appropriate for the citizens within its 

jurisdiction. Once a state decides to 

stockpile KI, it is incumbent on that 

state to develop a program for 

distribution. This program is reviewed 

by FEMA (now part of DHS) under the 

44 CFR part 350 process. The petition 

did not provide information that would 

cause the NRC to reconsider this 

determination. 

K. Require radiological emergency 

preparedness training for all day care 

center and nursery school employees 

within the 10-mile EPZ. 

NRC Review 

The Commission believes that 

specialized training for day care center 

and nursery school employees is 

unnecessary because they would be 

using already established and 

distributed procedures for evacuation. 

Absent compelling information that 

specialized training for day care and 

nursery school employees would result 

in significant safety benefits that justify 

the additional regulatory burden, the 

Commission finds no safety reason to 

justify the requested revision to 10 CFR 

part 50. 

L. Require listing of designated 

relocation centers in area phone 

directories, so that parents can quickly 

and easily find where their children will 

be sent in case of a radiological 

emergency. 

NRC Review 

FEMA’s GM EV–2 (pp. 2 and 4) 

specifies that offsite emergency plans 

are to identify relocation centers outside 

of the 10-mile EPZ for all schools, 

including day care centers and nursery 

schools. Some states list the relocation 

centers in telephone directories, some 

states identify the relocation centers in 

the yearly public information packages, 

and some states identify the relocation 

centers in their offsite emergency 

plans.1 The Commission believes that 

the current publication practices are 

adequate. 

M. Require establishment of toll-free 

or 911-type telephone lines, to provide 

information about radiological 

emergency plans and procedures for day 

care centers and nursery schools within 

the 10-mile EPZ. 

NRC Review 

Although not required by NRC 

regulations or provided in FEMA 

guidance, all states provide a toll-free 

phone number in the yearly public 

information package where members of 

the public can acquire emergency 

preparedness information. The 

Commission sees no added safety 

benefits in revising its regulations to 

require something that all states are 

already doing. 

N. Creation of written scripts for use 

by the local Emergency Alert System 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44599 

2FEMA did evaluate a May 3, 2005 Emergency 

Planning exercise at TMI. NRC understands that 

during this exercise FEMA reviewed aspects of 

emergency planning involving nurseries and day 

care centers. No deficiencies were identified by 

FEMA during the exercise. FEMA’s final report on 

the exercise was issued on August 4, 2005. 

that include information about 

evacuation plans and designated 

relocation centers for day care centers 

and nursery schools. 

NRC Review 

FEMA’s GM EV–2 (p. 6) specifies that 

a method is to exist (e.g., EAS) for 

notifying day care center and nursery 

school parents of the status and location 

of their children, in the event of an 

emergency. FEMA (now part of DHS) 

has decided that it is unnecessary to 

incorporate such a prescriptive 

requirement into its regulations and 

guidance, which allows the off-site 

response organizations the flexibility to 

develop adequate plans and procedures 

that best fit their specific needs, and the 

needs of the affected public that they are 

charged with protecting. The petition 

provided no evidence that the current 

method of notification is inadequate. As 

a result, the Commission sees no added 

safety benefit in requiring a written 

script. 

Commission Evaluation 

The evaluation of the advantages and 

disadvantages of the rulemaking 

requested by the petition with respect to 

the four strategic goals of the 

Commission follows: 

1. Ensure Protection of Public Health 

and Safety and the Environment: The 

NRC staff believes that the requested 

rulemaking would not make a 

significant contribution to maintaining 

safety because current NRC and FEMA 

regulations and guidance already 

require inclusion of nursery schools and 

day care centers in state and local 

government offsite emergency plans. 

This was verified by the state 

governments that submitted comment 

letters which stated that day care 

centers and nursery schools are 

included in their offsite emergency 

planning and that this is not an issue 

requiring a change to the emergency 

planning regulations. As such, it is a 

potential compliance issue that can be 

resolved using the current regulatory 

structure. 

2. Ensure the Secure Use and 

Management of Radioactive Materials: 

The requested regulatory amendments 

would have no impact on the security 

provisions necessary for the secure use 

and management of radioactive 

materials. The petition for rulemaking 

deals with the taking of protective 

actions for nursery schools and day care 

centers by offsite authorities, which is 

currently required by NRC and FEMA 

regulations and guidance. 

3. Ensure Openness in Our Regulatory 

Process: The requested rulemaking 

would not enhance openness or public 

confidence in our regulatory process 

because the petitioners’ requests raise 

potential issues of compliance with the 

existing requirements and guidance. 

The NRC staff does not believe that the 

contentions identify deficiencies in 

regulatory requirements. The 

Commission’s regulations require that 

protective actions have been developed 

for the public, including day care 

centers and nursery schools. Existing 

guidance in NUREG–0654 and in GM–

EV2 address the planning for this 

segment of the population. Appendix 4 

in NUREG–0654, discusses ‘‘special 

facility populations.’’ Day care centers 

and nursery schools fall under the 

definition of ‘‘special facility 

populations’’ and as such, these 

populations should be included in the 

offsite emergency response plans. It 

should be noted, however, that 3000 

members of the public co-signed the 

original petition for rulemaking. 

Additionally, 410 members of the public 

signed letters supporting the petition. 

This amount of public support 

reinforces the importance of NRC and 

FEMA’s continued commitment to 

providing protection for the public in 

the event of an emergency which has 

always included day care centers and 

nursery schools. 

4. Ensure that NRC Actions Are 

Effective, Efficient, Realistic and Timely: 

The proposed revisions would decrease 

efficiency and effectivensss because 

current NRC and FEMA regulations and 

guidance already adequately address the 

petition requests. Amending the 

regulations would require licensees and 

state and local governments to generate 

additional and more prescriptive 

information in their emergency plans, 

and the NRC and FEMA staffs would 

need to evaluate the additional 

information. The additional NRC staff 

and licensee effort would not improve 

efficiency or effectiveness. In addition, 

the NRC resources expended to 

promulgate the rule and supporting 

regulatory guidance would be 

significant with little return value. 

5. Ensure Excellence in Agency 

Management: The requested rule would 

have no effect on the excellence in NRC 

management, but would increase 

licensee and state and local government 

burden by requiring the generation of 

additional, unnecessary, and 

burdensome information with little 

expected benefit because current NRC 

and FEMA regulations and guidance 

already adequately address the petition 

requests. This rulemaking would add 

significant burden on a national scale in 

order to address a potential local 

compliance issue. 

Reason for Denial 

The Commission is denying the 

petition for rulemaking (PRM–50–79) 

submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, 

et al. Current NRC requirements and 

NRC and FEMA guidance, provide 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection of all members of the public, 

including children attending day care 

centers and nursery schools, in the 

event of a nuclear power plant incident. 

Many of the specific requests of the 

petitioner are either already covered by 

regulations and/or guidance documents 

or are inappropriate for inclusion in 

NRC regulations due to their very 

prescriptive nature. The Commission 

does believe, however, that information 

obtained during the review of the 

petition does raise questions about local 

implementation of relevant 

requirements and guidelines. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff met with 

FEMA officials to assure an 

understanding of this issue for 

consideration by FEMA as reflected in 

separate letters to the petitioner and 

TMI-Alert Chairman, Eric Epstein dated 

respectively, March 23, 2005 and March 

24, 2005.2 Copies of those letters are 

available through the NRCs ADAMS 

document system and can be located 

using accession numbers ML050590344 

and ML050590357, respectively. The 

NRC staff will continue to work with 

FEMA to ensure emergency planning 

exercises are appropriately focused and 

provide adequate assurance regarding 

compliance with NRC and FEMA 

regulations and guidance. 

For these reasons, the Commission 

denies PRM–50–79. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of August, 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06–6723 Filed 8–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS