19002 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 212

Aliens, Documentation,

Nonimmigrant, Passport and visas,

Waivers.

Accordingly, part 212 of chapter I of

title 8 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is proposed to be amended

as follows:

PART 212—DOCUMENTARY

REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS;

WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN

INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE

1. The authority citation for part 212

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182,

1184, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1252; 8 CFR part 2.

2. In § 212.1, paragraph (g) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 212.1 Documentary requirements for

nonimmigrants.

* * * * *

(g) Unforeseen emergency. A

nonimmigrant seeking admission to the

United States must present an

unexpired visa, and passport valid for

the amount of time set forth in section

212(a)(7)(B) of the Act, or a valid border

crossing identification card at the time

of application for admission, unless the

nonimmigrant satisfies the requirements

described in paragraphs (a) through (f)

and (i) of this section. Upon a

nonimmigrant’s application on Form I–

193, a district director at a Port-of-Entry

may, in an exercise of his or her

discretion, on a case-by-case basis,

waive the documentary requirements, if

satisfied that the nonimmigrant cannot

present the required documents because

of an unforeseen emergency. The

district director or the deputy

Commissioner may at any time revoke a

waiver previously authorized pursuant

to this paragraph and notify the

nonimmigrant in writing to that effect.

* * * * *

Dated March 15, 1995.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9272 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150–AF20

Production and Utilization Facilities;

Emergency Planning and

Preparedness Exercise Requirements

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

revise its emergency planning

regulations. The proposed rule would

amend the current regulations governing

domestic licensing of production and

utilization facilities, as necessary, to

facilitate greater flexibility in the

licensee’s emergency preparedness

training activities during the ‘‘off-year’’

for implementing the current

requirement for annual exercise of the

onsite emergency plan which is

conducted to evaluate major portions of

licensees’ emergency response

capabilities. The proposed amendment

would preserve the existing requirement

that each licensee, at each site, exercise

biennially with full participation by

States and local governments within the

plume exposure pathway emergency

planning zone (EPZ); would reduce

from annual to biennial the required

frequency of exercise of the licensee’s

onsite emergency plan (which may be

included in the biennial full

participation exercise); would require

licensees to ensure that adequate

emergency response capabilities are

maintained during the interval between

biennial exercises by conducting drills,

including at least one drill involving a

combination of some of the principal

functional areas of the licensee’s onsite

emergency response capabilities; and

would require licensees to continue

enabling State and local governments in

plume exposure pathway EPZs to

participate in exercises and in drills in

the interval between the biennial full

participation exercises. By undertaking

this rulemaking, the Commission would

grant, in part, a petition for rulemaking

submitted by Virginia Electric Power

Company on December 9, 1992.

DATES: The comment period expires July

13, 1995. Comments received after this

date will be considered if practical to do

so, but only those comments received

on or before this date can be assured of

consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.

Hand deliver comments to 11545

Rockville Pike, Maryland, between 7:45

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Copies of comments received may be

examined at the Commission’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street NW

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Comments may be submitted

electronically, in either ASCII text or

WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or

later), by calling the NRC Electronic

Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The

bulletin board may be accessed using a

personal computer, a modem, and one

of the commonly available

communications software packages, or

directly via Internet. Background

documents on the rulemaking are also

available, as practical, for downloading

and viewing on the bulletin board.

If using a personal computer and

modem, the NRC rulemaking subsystem

on FedWorld can be accessed directly

by dialing the toll free number (800)

303–9672. Communication software

parameters should be set as follows:

parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop

bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT–100

terminal emulation, the NRC

rulemaking subsystem can then be

accessed by selecting the ‘‘Rules Menu’’

option from the ‘‘NRC Main Menu.’’

Users will find the ‘‘FedWorld Online

User’s Guides’’ particularly helpful.

Many NRC subsystems and data bases

also have a ‘‘Help/Information Center’’

option that is tailored to the particular

subsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can

also be accessed by a direct dial phone

number for the main FedWorld BBS,

(703) 321–3339, or by using Telnet via

Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703)

321–3339 to contact FedWorld, the NRC

subsystem will be accessed from the

main FedWorld menu by selecting the

‘‘Regulatory, Government

Administration and State Systems,’’

then selecting ‘‘Regulatory Information

Mall.’’ At that point, a menu will be

displayed that has an option ‘‘U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’ that

will take you to the NRC Online main

menu. The NRC Online area also can be

accessed directly by typing ‘‘/go nrc’’ at

a FedWorld command line. If you access

NRC from FedWorld’s main menu, you

may return to FedWorld by selecting the

‘‘Return to FedWorld’’ option from the

NRC Online Main Menu. However, if

you access NRC at FedWorld by using

NRC’s toll-free number, you will have

full access to all NRC systems, but you

will not have access to the main

FedWorld system.

If you contact FedWorld using Telnet,

you will see the NRC area and menus,

including the Rules Menu. Although

you will be able to download

documents and leave messages, you will

not be able to write comments or upload

files (comments). If you contact

FedWorld using FTP, all files can be

accessed and downloaded but uploads

are not allowed; all you will see is a list

of files without descriptions (normal

Gopher look). An index file listing all

files within a subdirectory, with

descriptions, is available. There is a 15-

minute time limit for FTP access.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19003

1This quote does not reflect changes to the

regulations that were made on March 25, 1994 (59

FR 14087), when the word ‘‘onsite’’ was added

before the words ‘‘emergency plan.’’

2 Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC

20402–9328. Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also

available for inspection and/or copying at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC.

Although FedWorld also can be

accessed through the World Wide Web,

like FTP that mode only provides access

for downloading files and does not

display the NRC Rules Menu.

For more information on NRC bulletin

boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems

Integration and Development Branch,

NRC, Washington, DC 20555, telephone

(301) 415–5780; e-mail AXD3@nrc.gov.

Single copies of this proposed

rulemaking may be obtained by written

request or telefax ((301) 415–2260) from:

Distribution Services, Printing and Mail

Services Branch, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington DC 20555.

Certain documents related to this

rulemaking, including comments

received, may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

These same documents may also be

viewed and downloaded electronically

via the Electronic Bulletin Board

established by NRC for this rulemaking

as indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Jamgochian, Regulation

Development Branch, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD

20852 (301–415–6534).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC has received a petition for

rulemaking submitted by the Virginia

Electric Power Company. The petition

was assigned Docket No. PRM 50–58 on

December 16, 1992. The petitioner has

requested that the NRC amend

Appendix E, Section IV, F.2., to 10 CFR

Part 50, ‘‘Emergency Planning and

Preparedness for Production and

Utilization Facilities,’’ to change the

requirement that each site exercise its

emergency plan biennially rather than

annually. The petitioner’s proposed

amendment would require each licensee

to conduct a biennial integrated exercise

of the emergency plan at each site and

to take actions necessary to ensure that

its emergency response capability is

maintained during the 2-year interval.

The petitioner believes that the annual

graded exercise is but one of many

indicators designed to provide

reasonable assurance that actions can

and will be taken during an emergency

situation that will provide for the health

and safety of the public.

The petitioner quotes 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix E, Section IV, F.2., which

states that ‘‘each licensee at each site

shall annually exercise its emergency

plan.’’ 1 The petitioner contends that

although not explicitly defined in the

rule, this statement has been interpreted

throughout the industry to require that

each licensee at each site annually

conduct an integrated exercise which

will be evaluated by the NRC.

The petitioner states that regulations

governing the frequency of State and

local emergency planning exercises

have been in place since 1984. These

regulations require a biennial exercise of

State and local emergency plans.

Therefore, the petitioner contends that

the requirement for an annual integrated

exercise for the onsite organization is

inconsistent and should be clarified.

The petitioner contends that

emergency preparedness programs

throughout the industry are designed to

achieve and maintain an adequate level

of emergency response capability. As

defined by NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–1,

Rev. 1, ‘‘Criteria for Preparation and

Evaluation of Radiological Emergency

Response Plans and Preparedness in

Support of Nuclear Power Plants,’’ a

joint Nuclear Regulatory Commission/

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(NRC/FEMA) report published in

November 1980,2 an exercise is an event

that tests the integrated capability and

major portions of the basic elements

existing within emergency preparedness

plans and organizations. The petitioner

contends, therefore, that an exercise is

designed to merely confirm the level of

response. As confirmation, an annual

exercise is not necessary to achieve the

underlying intent of the rule which is to

attain an acceptable level of emergency

preparedness. The petitioner further

contends that because the annual

exercise is the primary mechanism

presently used by the NRC to evaluate

readiness, the resources dedicated to

this event are naturally more focused on

exercise performance than on

emergency preparedness. The petitioner

states that because of the effectiveness

of the emergency preparedness program,

the annual graded exercise merely

represents a separate means for the NRC

to evaluate the licensee’s performance.

The petitioner believes that the graded

exercise has, in effect, become an end

unto itself.

The petitioner contends that the

response of offsite response

organizations during exercises

performed over the past 8 years has

demonstrated that a biennial frequency

is sufficient to provide reasonable

assurance of the health and safety of the

public. During this time, there has been

no indication of a need to increase the

frequency of the demonstration. The

petitioner states further that although it

is recognized that the Commission

retained the annual frequency

requirement for licensees when it

amended its regulations in 1984 to

allow State and local governments to

participate in emergency preparedness

exercises every 2 years, the request to

amend 10 CFR part 50 is implicitly

supported by another part of the Code

of Federal Regulations. The petitioner

contends that regulations issued by

FEMA at 44 CFR 350.9, by virtue of

their stated requirements for offsite

response organizations, recognize that,

within the context of those regulations,

the biennial conduct of an exercise is

sufficient to demonstrate that protective

measures can be taken in the event of

an accident, thereby providing

reasonable assurance of the health and

safety of the public. The petitioner

further contends that provisions for

giving the States and local response

organizations the opportunity to

participate in the licensee’s drill and

exercise program could be easily

accommodated independent of the

petitioner’s proposed rule change.

The petitioner contends that

technological advancements and

applications have served to greatly

enhance and automate accident

assessment activities employed during

an emergency response for both the

licensee (through the use of Safety

Parameter Display System and dose

assessment computer models) and the

Federal Government (through the use of

the Emergency Response Data System

and RASCAL, a computer dose

assessment model). Improvements to

equipment and facilities and

programmatic enhancements within the

nuclear emergency preparedness

discipline over the past decade have

elevated the level of response capability

throughout the industry. As evidence,

the petitioner refers to the results of the

Systematic Assessment of Licensee

Performance (SALP) program, a

mechanism employed by the NRC to

assess, among other things, emergency

preparedness indicators. The petitioner

indicates that during the period between

1980 and 1992, the industry-averaged

SALP rating for emergency
19004 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

preparedness improved from 2.29 to

1.26. The overall average for emergency

preparedness SALP ratings for this 12-

year period is 1.61.

The Petitioner

The petitioner is a U.S. commercial

nuclear power reactor licensee for North

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and

Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The

petitioner states that emergency

planning regulations, promulgated as a

result of the March 1979 accident at

Three Mile Island, govern virtually all

aspects of a licensee’s emergency

preparedness program and that they

have done much to lay the basis for a

structured formal response capability.

The petitioner further states that

maintenance and verification of

emergency response capability are

accomplished through the programs that

ensure adequacy and effectiveness of

plans, procedures, facilities, equipment,

response personnel, and performance

demonstrations. The petitioner focuses

the petition on the need to conduct an

annual exercise to ensure the adequacy

of the emergency response capability.

The petition is based on the petitioner’s

belief that the annual exercise is only

one of many indicators designed to

provide reasonable assurance that

actions can and will be taken during an

emergency situation that will protect the

health and safety of the public.

The petitioner believes that the

proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 50

would do nothing to undermine the

provisions already in place for ensuring

that identified deficiencies resulting

from the conduct of exercise are

corrected.

Need for the Suggested Amendments

The petitioner contends the current

annual testing requirement of a

licensee’s emergency response

capability exceeds the threshold needed

for determining the adequacy of the

level of response. Therefore, the

adoption of a biennial demonstration

frequency would allow an increase in

cost efficiency for industry and the

Federal Government. Emergency

preparedness exercises conducted in

1990 and 1991 have averaged a total of

approximately $20,000 per inspection in

NRC fees for the Virginia Electric and

Power Company. The petitioner

estimates that each exercise costs

approximately $200,000 in resource

commitments for the company. The

approximately 450 personnel required

for each exercise could be more

effectively utilized in their normal

function rather than by participating in

an unneeded test of response capability.

Furthermore, the petitioner states

that, based on experience,

approximately 750 staff hours are

expended during the development of an

exercise scenario. Emergency planning

resources, therefore, could be more

effectively applied to the development

and maintenance of emergency

preparedness activities rather than being

absorbed by exercise demonstration

activities, such as exercise scenario

development, controller organization

preparations, organization impacts and

facility availability (e.g., control room

simulator time).

The petitioner characterizes the

present requirement as one that is

resource intensive but of marginal

importance to safety.

The Petitioner’s Suggested Solution

The petitioner requests the NRC

amend its regulations governing

domestic licensing of production and

utilization facilities, as necessary, to

require that each licensee exercise its

emergency plan for each site biennially

rather than annually and to otherwise

ensure that its emergency response

capability is maintained during the 2-

year interval. The petitioner requests

that the NRC modify the existing

regulation to provide greater

clarification by explicitly defining the

requirement.

The Petitioner’s Suggested Amendments

Petitioner requests that the NRC:

1. Amend Section IV, Paragraph F.2.,

of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50,

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and

Utilization Facilities,’’ to read as

follows: ‘‘Each licensee at each site shall

conduct an integrated exercise every 2

years. The licensee shall take actions

necessary to ensure the emergency

response capabilities are maintained

during the 2-year interval.’’

2. Amend Section IV, Paragraph

F.3.(f), of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50

to read as follows: ‘‘Licensees shall

enable any State or local government

located within the plume exposure

pathway EPZ to participate in exercises

when requested by such State or local

government.’’

3. Revise Section IV, Paragraph F.2.,

of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 to

provide greater clarification regardless

of any action taken to amend the

existing rule. Although not explicitly

defined in the regulation, it has been

interpreted throughout the industry that

the regulation requires each licensee to

annually conduct an integrated exercise

at each site that will be evaluated by the

NRC.

Public Comments

A notice of filing of the petition,

Docket No. PRM–50–58, was published

in the Federal Register on March 4,

1993 (58 FR 12341). Public comments

were requested by May 3, 1993. A total

of 32 comment letters were received, of

which 17 utilities, 5 State emergency

management agencies and NUMARC

supported the petition; while 7 State

emergency management agencies,

FEMA, and an environmental group

opposed the petition.

Support of the petition for rulemaking

could generally be characterized by the

following public comments:

* * * an annual, graded NRC exercise is

but one of many indicators designed to

provide reasonable assurance that actions can

be taken in the case of an emergency that are

effective to protect the health and safety of

the public.

* * * Power reactor licensee effectiveness

in emergency planning has improved steadily

to the point where annual observed exercises

no longer provide a significant benefit let

alone a benefit commensurate with their cost

in dollars and diverted resources.

* * * Based on plant management’s

commitment to emergency preparedness

* * * it is believed that biennial exercising

is a sufficient frequency for determining the

adequacy of a licensee’s level of performance.

It is well realized that a licensee cannot

ignore emergency preparedness for 20

months and then train and fix facilities and

procedures within 4 months in preparation

for an exercise. Emergency preparedness’

complex infrastructure demands a continual

evaluation and maintenance program.

Changing to biennial exercising should not

lessen the high level of emergency

preparedness * * *

As an alternate to NRC observation of an

annual exercise to assess a licensee’s

response capability, the NRC can utilize the

resident inspector during periodic drills to

determine if the licensee’s program is

effective * * * Annual exercises are

typically constructed to demonstrate

everything * * * we are actually reinforcing

the belief by State and local governments that

every emergency at a nuclear power plant

will go to general emergency (required for

most annual exercises).

Opposition to the petition for

rulemaking could also generally be

characterized by the following public

comments:

* * * the exercise is not simply an

indicator for NRC evaluation of the level of

emergency preparedness, but also serves as

training and practice for maintaining skills

* * * There may be sufficient turnover or

reassignment of plant personnel that two

years between exercises is too long.

Currently, many nuclear utilities are going

through a period of ‘streamlining’ their

organizations * * * there will be changes in

utility personnel with assignments as

accident responders. A two-year integrated

emergency exercise will not allow personnel

sufficient training in a new role.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19005

Regardless of the individual and collective

levels of proficiency or technical

sophistication, we still find exercises useful

in identifying planning, training, or resource

needs. In the past, we have often used utilityonly and partial-scale exercises to train new

personnel, test new facilities, or strengthen

our relationship with our nuclear utilities

and other agencies. Given the importance of

preparedness to overall nuclear safety, we do

not believe that annual utility exercises pose

an excessive burden. Relaxation of the

current requirement is therefore not

necessary and should be denied.

Additionally, FEMA’s opposition to

the petition in rulemaking focused on

the following points:

The proposed relaxation of the annual

exercise requirement to a biennial frequency

should be carefully analyzed to address any

diminution in preparedness that might occur

either to onsite or offsite programs. Our

experience in the Radiological Emergency

Preparedness (REP) Program over the last ten

years has shown the great importance of the

biennial, FEMA-graded, REP exercises in

achieving meaningful, measurable

preparedness for offsite jurisdictions around

nuclear power plants. However, although

State and local emergency plans are meant to

minimize health and safety risks to the

public should a radiological accident affect

offsite areas, the licensee’s onsite emergency

plans are designed not only to prevent a

radiological accident from occurring, but to

serve as the ‘‘first line of defense’’ to prevent

the accident from posing offsite health and

safety effects.

FEMA disagrees with VEPCO’s

characterization of the present annual onsite

exercise requirement as being of marginal

importance to safety. A licensee’s onsite

emergency preparedness is critical for

protecting the public’s health and safety, and

we believe that the evaluation of a licensee’s

performance during annual onsite exercises

is the most effective way to measure the level

of a licensee’s preparedness to respond to an

emergency situation.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

The petitioner characterizes the

present requirement as one that is

resource intensive but of marginal

importance to safety. The petitioner has

identified a number of issues associated

with the current requirement to conduct

an emergency plan exercise annually as

grounds for change. The issues

presented by the petitioner are as

follows:

(1) The requirement to conduct an

integrated annual exercise is not clearly

defined. Therefore the regulation should

be clarified.

(2) The existing regulation, 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix E, is inconsistent

with other regulations that govern the

frequency of offsite response

organization integrated exercises (i.e.,

44 CFR Part 350).

(3) The performance of offsite

response organizations during biennial

exercises has confirmed that a biennial

frequency is sufficient to provide the

reasonable assurance finding.

(4) The existing regulation, 10 CFR

50.54(t), provides for an independent

review of the adequacy of program

implementation.

(5) The existing requirement to

conduct an annual exercise is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. A biennial exercise

is sufficient to provide an acceptable

formal confirmation of capability.

(6) Reconsideration of the

requirement is warranted in light of the

completion and implementation of

enhanced emergency preparedness

facilities, the current level of industry

proficiency and performance, and the

increased industry sensitivity to

emergency preparedness.

(7) Personnel could be more

effectively utilized in their normal

professional function rather than by

participating in a resource-intensive

integrated test that only serves to

confirm the already existing level of the

response capability.

(8) Emergency planning resources

could be more effectively utilized to

further the development and

maintenance of emergency preparedness

activities.

Commission Response

The Commission believes that it is

important, in light of the discussion

provided in the petition, to make clearer

NRC’s intent (under the existing rule)

that licensees need not conduct annual

exercises employing scenarios that

progress to severe core damage and/or

result in offsite releases. Historically,

these scenarios were used in both the

biennial full participation exercise of

off-site emergency plans and the annual

exercise of the licensee’s onsite

emergency plan. However, this is no

longer necessary for the currently

required annual exercises of the

licensee’s onsite emergency plan.

Information Notice (IN) 87–54,

‘‘Emergency Response Exercises,’’ was

issued to clarify NRC intent in this

regard and to provide detailed guidance,

specifically on the types of ‘‘off-year’’

training activities that licensees could

perform during the interval between the

biennial full participation exercises to

maintain adequate EP response

capabilities and satisfy the rule.

Some licensees have availed

themselves of the flexibility afforded by

the IN guidance to conduct realistic,

interactive ‘‘off-year’’ training activities

that simulate less severe events, such as

a minor fire, loss of electric power, and

equipment failure, and focus on the

capability of the onsite emergency

response organization to diagnose

problems and develop actions to

successfully mitigate the scenario event.

However, as noted in the petition, many

licensees continue to employ severe

scenarios in annual exercises of their

onsite emergency plans.

Accordingly, the Commission is

proposing to modify Section IV.F.2.b. of

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, to reduce

from annual to biennial the required

frequency of exercise of the onsite

emergency plan (which may be

included in the biennial full

participation exercise specified in

IV.F.2.c.), and to require that licensees

conduct training drills, including at

least one drill involving a combination

of some of the principal functional areas

of the licensee’s onsite emergency

response capabilities, during the

interval between biennial full

participation exercises to ensure that

adequate emergency response

capabilities are maintained. The

principal functional areas of emergency

response include activities such as

management and coordination of

emergency response, accident

assessment, protective action

decisionmaking, and plant system repair

and corrective actions.

This approach is consistent with a

comment from one State that was not

opposed to the petition but would prefer

that some guidelines be included in

Appendix E requiring plant specific

internal exercises during the ‘‘off year’’

to ensure plant personnel familiarity

with their response plans rather than

the vague expectancy that this activity

will be done. Furthermore, licensees

would continue to enable State and

local governments in the plume

exposure pathway EPZs to participate in

drills in the interval between exercises,

thus preserving their training

opportunities.

In response to FEMA’s opposition to

this petition for rulemaking, the

Commission notes that although the

existing requirements relating to

licensees’ off-year EP activities are being

modified (most noticeably by

eliminating the need for a full formal

exercise of the licensee’s onsite

emergency plan in the ‘‘off-years’’), the

Commission is confident that there is no

diminution of preparedness or increase

in risk to the public. Licensees are

specifically required under the

proposed rule to maintain adequate

emergency response capabilities

between the biennial full participation

exercises, and will now be conducting

realistic drills, including at least one

drill involving a combination of some of

the principal functional areas of the

licensee’s onsite emergency response
19006 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

capabilities, during that interval. The

principal functional areas of emergency

response include activities such as

management and coordination of

emergency response, accident

assessment, protective action

decisionmaking, and plant system repair

and corrective actions.

The Commission believes that the

proposed changes may result in the

reallocation and more effective

utilization of resources within some

licensees’ EP programs in order to

further the development and

maintenance of emergency preparedness

capabilities during the ‘‘off-year’’

periods. It is not clear, however, that

these changes will result in significant

overall cost savings. The Commission

cautions specifically against

expectations that the proposed changes

will necessarily result in significant

reductions in NRC inspection activity

directed to observation and evaluation

of licensees’ off-year EP maintenance

activities, because they may be modified

under the new rule. Also, licensees will,

upon request, submit scenarios for NRC

review in support of future inspections

as may be deemed necessary by NRC.

Summary

After considering the arguments

presented by the petitioners and

evaluating all public comments

received, and based on the further

understanding of the issues involved

gained from 13 years of experience

evaluating licensee emergency

preparedness exercises, the Commission

concludes that:

(1) The required frequency for full

formal exercise of the licensee’s onsite

emergency plan should be reduced from

annual to biennial;

(2) The means by which licensees are

expected to train and maintain their

emergency response capabilities and

readiness in the 2-year interval between

evaluated exercises should be changed

by requiring licensees to conduct drills,

including at least one drill involving a

combination of some of the principal

functional areas of the licensee’s onsite

emergency response capabilities; and

(3) Opportunities for training by State

and local governments should be

preserved.

The principal functional areas of

emergency response include activities

such as management and coordination

of emergency response, accident

assessment, protective action

decisionmaking, and plant system repair

and corrective actions.

During the specified drills, activation

of all of the licensee’s emergency

response facilities (TSC, OSC, and EOF)

would not be necessary, licensees

would have the opportunity to consider

accident management strategies,

supervised instruction would be

permitted, operating staff would have

the opportunity to resolve problems

(success paths) rather than have

controllers intervene, and the drills

could focus on onsite training

objectives.

The proposed revisions would relieve

licensees from the current requirement

to conduct annually a full formal

exercise of the licensee’s onsite

emergency plan, and make clear that

licensees have flexibility in choosing

the activities that are to be conducted in

the 2-year period between biennial fullparticipation exercises in order to

maintain their emergency response

capabilities. Greater flexibility in the

training of the onsite emergency

response organization could provide

significant benefits to some licensees.

For example, licensees could eliminate

the practice of developing scenarios that

proceed to severe core damage, offsite

releases, or to higher emergency

classification levels. Licensees would

have greater opportunity to conduct

realistic emergency response training

with supervised instruction that

allowed the operating staff to consider

accident management strategies,

diagnose problems and be given credit

for actions that would mitigate scenario

events (e.g., ‘‘success paths’’).

This approach is also responsive to

comments from FEMA, some States, and

others who expressed concern about

possible decreased licensee training and

readiness in the period between

biennial exercises. Under the proposed

approach, licensees will still be required

to conduct emergency response training

and drills of the onsite emergency

response organization, and to provide

training opportunities to State and local

government personnel during the

interval between biennial exercises.

Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50.47 (a)(1)

is being revised in order to correct a

typographical error that appeared in the

1993 edition of Title 10, Parts 0 to 50

of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Submission of Comments in Electronic

Form

Commenters are encouraged to

submit, in addition to the original paper

copy, a copy of the letter in electronic

form on a 5.25 or 3.5 inch computer

diskette: IBM PC/DOS or MS/DOS

format. Data files should be provided in

WordPerfect format or unformatted

ASCII code. The format and version

should be identified on the diskette’s

external label.

Finding of No Significant

Environmental Impact: Availability

The Commission has determined

under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the

Commission’s regulations in Subpart A

of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if

adopted, would not be a major Federal

action significantly affecting the qualify

of the human environment; and

therefore, an environmental impact

statement is not required. The proposed

rule would update and clarify the

emergency planning regulations relating

to exercises. It does not involve any

modification to any plant or revise the

need for or the standards for emergency

plans. There is no adverse effect on the

quality of the environment. The

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact on which this

determination is based are available for

inspection at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC 20037.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule does not contain

a new or amended information

collection requirement subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C 3501 et. seq.). Existing

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

approval Number 3150–0011.

Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a

regulatory analysis on this proposed

regulation. The analysis examines the

costs and benefits of the alternatives

considered by the Commission. The

analysis is available for inspection in

the NRC Public Document Room, 2120

L St., NW (Lower Level), Washington,

DC 20037. Single copies of the analysis

may be obtained from Michael T.

Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 415–6534.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The proposed

rule would update and clarify

ambiguities in the emergency planning

regulations relating to exercises. Nuclear

power plant licensees do not fall within

the definition of small business in

Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632), the Small Business Size

Standards of the Small Business

Administration in 13 CFR Part 121, or

the Commission’s Size Standards

published at 56 FR 56671 (November 6,

1991). As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19007

the Commission hereby certifies that the

proposed rule, if promulgated, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

Backfit Analysis

The proposed changes are intended to

clarify the intent of the existing rule and

facilitate greater flexibility in licensees’

conduct of off-year emergency response

training activities; but this action does

not seek to impose any new or increased

requirements in this area. The proposed

changes would permit, but not require,

licensees to change their existing

emergency plans and procedures to

employ scenarios in off-year training or

drills that do not go to severe core

damage or result in offsite exposures.

No backfitting is intended or approved

in connection with this proposed rule

change.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

Antitrust, Classified information,

Criminal penalties, Fire protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

power plants and reactors, Penalties,

Radiation protection, Reactor siting

criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC

is proposing to adopt the following

amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 50

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec.

234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233,

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended,

202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244,

1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

2. In § 50.47, paragraph (a)(1) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 50.47 Emergency plans.

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(d) of this section, no initial operating

license for a nuclear power reactor will

be issued unless a finding is made by

the NRC that there is reasonable

assurance that adequate protective

measures can and will be taken in the

event of a radiological emergency. No

finding under this section is necessary

for issuance of a renewed nuclear power

reactor operating license.

* * * * *

3. Appendix E to part 50 is amended

by revising section IV.F., paragraphs

2.b., and e. to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 50—Emergency

Planning and Preparedness for

Production and Utilization Facilities

* * * * *

IV. Content of Emergency Plans

F. Training

2. * * *

b. Each licensee at each site shall conduct

an exercise of its onsite emergency plan

every two years. The exercise may be

included in the full participation biennial

exercise required by paragraph 2.c. of the

section. In addition, the licensee shall take

actions necessary to ensure that adequate

emergency response capabilities are

maintained during the interval between

biennial exercises by conducting drills,

including at least one drill involving a

combination of some of the principal

functional areas of the licensee’s onsite

emergency response capabilities. The

principal functional areas of emergency

response include such activities as

management and coordination of emergency

response, accident assessment, protective

action decisionmaking, and plant system

repair and corrective actions. During these

drills, activation of all of the licensee’s

emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, and

EOF) would not be necessary, licensees

would have the opportunity to consider

accident management strategies, supervised

instruction would be permitted, operating

staff would have the opportunity to resolve

problems (success paths) rather than have

controllers intervene, and the drills could

focus on onsite training objectives.

* * * * *

e. Licensees shall enable any State or local

government located within the plume

exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the

licensee’s drills when requested by such

State or local government.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of April, 1995.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–9222 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 119, 121, 125, 127 and 135

Forum With the Administrator and

Deputy Administrator; Public Meeting

on Commuter Operations and General

Certification and Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and

forum with the Administrator and

Deputy Administrator.

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice

to advise the public of an open forum

with the Administrator and Deputy

Administrator. Later on the same day

the FAA will hold a public meeting on

the notice of proposed rulemaking,

Commuter Operations and General

Certification and Operations, published

in the Federal Register on March 29,

1995 [60 FR 16230]. The purpose of

these meetings is to provide an

opportunity for the public to comment

on regulatory aviation issues in general

and specifically on the commuter

rulemaking.

DATES: The meetings will be held on

May 18, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Meeting times are as follows:

9:30 a.m.–11:00 a.m.—Open forum with

the Administrator and Deputy

Administrator

1:00 p.m.—Public meeting on the

commuter NPRM.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in

Anchorage, Alaska, at the Loussac

Library, 3600 Denali Street, Assembly

Chambers, Level 1.

Persons unable to attend any of the

meetings may mail their comments in

triplicate to: Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Rules Docket (AGC–200),

Docket No. 28154, 800 Independence

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests to present a statement at the

public meeting on the commuter NPRM

or questions regarding the logistics of

the meeting should be directed to Linda

Williams, Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of Rulemaking

(ARM–109), 800 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone

(202) 267–9685; fax (202) 267–5075, or

Sandra Paxton, Federal Aviation

Administration, Alaska Region

Headquarters (AAL–1), 222 West 7th

Avenue, #14, Anchorage, AK 99533,

telephone: (907) 271–5645.

Questions concerning the subject

matter of the public meeting on the

commuter NPRM should be directed to

Katherine Hakala, Flight Standards

Service (AFS–250), Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, Washington, DC 20591.

Telephone: (202) 267–8137.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

President Clinton has set a goal of reinventing the regulatory process and

making major improvements in the way

it serves the American people. The