This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

30129

Vol. 61, No. 116

Friday, June 14, 1996

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: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is revising its

emergency planning regulations. This

amendment allows greater flexibility in

the licensee’s emergency preparedness

training activities in the 2-year period

between biennial full-participation

exercises. The amendment preserves the

requirement that each licensee, at each

site, conduct an emergency

preparedness exercise biennially, with

full participation by State and local

governments that are within the plume

exposure pathway emergency planning

zone (EPZ); reduces the required

frequency of exercising the licensee’s

onsite emergency plan from annual to

biennial; requires licensees to ensure

that adequate emergency response

capabilities are maintained between

biennial exercises by conducting drills,

at least one of which must involve some

of the principal functional areas of the

licensee’s onsite emergency response

capabilities; and requires licensees to

continue enabling State and local

governments that are in the plume

exposure pathway emergency planning

zones (EPZs) to participate in drills.

With this amendment, the Commission

is granting, in part, a petition for

rulemaking submitted by the Virginia

Electric Power Company on December

9, 1992 (PRM–50–58).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact

Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–6534);

E-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC received a petition for

rulemaking submitted on December 9,

1992, by the Virginia Electric Power

Company that was assigned Docket No.

PRM–50–58. The petitioner requested

that the NRC amend, Section IV.F.2., of

10 CFR part 50, appendix E,

‘‘Emergency Planning and Preparedness

for Production and Utilization

Facilities,’’ to change the requirement

that each site exercise its emergency

plan biennially rather than annually.

The petitioner’s proposed amendment

would have required each licensee to

conduct a biennial full participation

exercise of the emergency plan at each

site and to take actions necessary to

ensure that its emergency response

capability is maintained during the 2-

year interval. The petitioner believes

that the annual graded exercise is but

one of many indicators designed to

provide reasonable assurance that

actions can and will be taken during an

emergency situation that will provide

for the health and safety of the public.

The NRC published a notice of receipt

for the petition on March 4, 1993 (58 FR

12341). A total of 32 comment letters

were received and considered when

developing a proposed rule concerning

the issues raised by the petitions.

A notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19002). Public

comments were requested by July 13,

1995. A total of 18 comment letters were

received, of which 12 utilities, 2 State

emergency management agencies, and

the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

supported the proposed rule change.

One State emergency management

agency and an environmental group

opposed the proposed rule change. One

letter received from a State emergency

management agency had no comment

on the proposed rule change.

NRC Response to Public Comments

The comment letters that were

received provided many thoughtprovoking and constructive comments.

The Commission’s evaluation of and

response to these comments is

presented in the following section.

Issue 1. While the biennial exercise

provides the opportunity for broad

based State and local participation in

exercising offsite plans and procedures,

the annual graded utility exercises

enhance the biennial exercise process

by providing State liaison personnel and

their utility counterparts the

opportunity to remain proficient. A 2-

year gap will lessen proficiency.

Response. It is clearly not the

Commission’s intent to lessen the

proficiency at any level of the

emergency planning organization

(onsite or offsite) with the rule change.

The Commission believes that

interaction and training problems that

might arise as a result of deleting the

annual onsite exercise would be

resolved by requiring licensees to enable

any State or local Government to

participate in the licensee’s drills when

requested by the State or local

Government. The Commission is

confident that, if a State governmental

emergency response agency feels the

need to participate in a drill that would

require specific offsite interaction and

decisionmaking capability, the licensee

would accommodate the State agency’s

request within the framework of the

drills that the licensee conducts

throughout the 2-year period between

the biennial full participation exercise.

In fact, a State who was originally

against granting the petition for

rulemaking because of similar concerns

stated the following in their comment

on the proposed rule.

‘‘We were among those initially opposed to

the Virginia Electric Power Company petition

that prompted this rule change, primarily

because of a perceived potential for a

diminution of emergency preparedness

capability on the part of licensees. However,

we acknowledge that the compromise

embodied in the Commission’s proposed rule

change offers adequate assurance that

ongoing licensee emergency preparedness

activities will continue at a reasonable level.

Because of the number of licensees and the

capacity of the State’s emergency response

organizations, when appropriate (this State)

will invoke the language of the proposed rule

change that requires licensees to ‘* * *

enable any State or local government located

within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to

participate in the licensee’s drills when

requested by such State or local

government.’ ’’

Issue 2. County, State, and utility

emergency preparedness will degrade

under a biennial schedule. Mini-drills

will not take the place of annual
30130 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

exercises as now constituted. Further,

States have been encouraging more

Federal exercise participation by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and NRC. The proposed change

would cut back on the opportunities to

test current personnel and train new

personnel.

Response. The Commission disagrees.

The rule change does not require ‘‘minidrills’’ to replace annual exercises. The

rule change does require that ‘‘the

licensee shall take actions necessary to

ensure that adequate emergency

response capabilities are maintained

* * * by conducting drills, including at

least one drill involving a combination

of some of the principal functional areas

of the licensee’s onsite emergency

response capabilities.’’ (10 CFR part 50,

appendix E, IV.F.2.b.)

Additionally, the opportunity to test

and train new personnel is provided by

requiring that ‘‘Licensees shall enable

any State or local Government * * * to

participate in the licensee’s drills.’’ (Id

at IV.F.2.e.)

Issue 3. There is a need for clarity

regarding State and local participation

in the exercises and drills that are

proposed to replace the annual NRC

graded exercise. At 60 FR 19002; dated

April 14, 1995, licensees are charged to

‘‘enable’’ States and local governments

to participate in these exercises and

drills, but at 60 FR 19006, activating all

response facilities (Technical Support

Center, (TSC); Operations Support

Center (OSC), and the Emergency

Operations Facility (EOF)) is not

necessary. Because State and local

governments coordinate interaction

through the EOF and Media Centers,

clarification is required. For example,

perhaps the utility would be charged

with exercising the EOF and Media

Centers as a part of at least one exercise

and/or drill each year.

Response. Based on the extensive

coordination and cooperation between

licensees and State and local

governments over the last 15 years, the

Commission is confident that, if a State

or local governmental emergency

response agency felt the need to

participate in a drill that included

interaction at the EOF and Media

Centers, the licensee would

accommodate the request within the

framework of the drills that the licensee

conducts throughout the 2-year period

between the biennial full participation

exercises.

Issue 4. Rather than eliminating any

requirements, it is suggested that each

site initially be granted a waiver for

‘‘off-year’’ integrated exercises. The

waiver would be effective only as long

as an acceptable level of emergency

response capability is maintained.

Response. The Commission disagrees.

The Commission believes that the

proposed rule would accomplish the

commenter’s objective without the

extensive NRC resources that

implementing the commenter’s

suggestion would require.

Issue 5. The Commission does not

appear to have addressed the

quantitative question about expected

turnover rates that would be important

in determining whether biennial

exercises could substantially reduce

local team skills.

Response. Please see the response to

Issue 1. Additionally, the Commission

has always been and continues to be

committed to the principle that there

exists ‘‘reasonable assurance that

adequate protective measures can and

will be taken in the event of a

radiological emergency.’’ If, this finding

is jeopardized either at the State or local

governmental level, additional training

would be warranted and would be

provided by participating in the drills

the licensee conducts between biennial

exercises.

Issue 6. The Commission has not

adequately addressed local Government

comments on the importance of regular

exercises for improving coordination

and communication.

Response. The Commission did not

receive any comments from local

governments relating to this petition for

rulemaking. Nonetheless, the

Commission is confident that if a local

Government wished to improve its

coordination and communication

capabilities, licensees would welcome

its participation in one or more of the

onsite drills that will be conducted

between the biennial exercises.

Issue 7. The Commission has not

addressed the FEMA concern that

regular cooperation with offsite teams

may play a critical role in their

preparedness, which may be especially

important in view of the potential role

such teams may play as first responders

in actual emergencies.

Response. Prior to publishing the

proposed rule, the Commission received

FEMA’s assurance that their concerns

with the petition for rulemaking had

been resolved. Nonetheless, regular

cooperation between offsite and licensee

emergency response teams will be

ensured by the requirement that

licensees enable any state or local

Government within the plume exposure

pathway emergency planning zone to

participate in the licensee’s drills upon

request.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

The petitioner characterizes the

present requirement as one that is

resource intensive but of marginal

importance to safety. The petitioner has

identified grounds for change for a

number of issues associated with the

current requirement to conduct an

emergency plan exercise annually. The

issues presented by the petitioner

follow:

(1) The requirement to conduct an

integrated annual exercise is not clearly

defined. Therefore, the regulation

should be clarified.

(2) The existing regulation, 10 CFR

part 50, appendix E, is inconsistent with

other regulations that govern the

frequency of offsite response

organization integrated exercises (i.e.,

44 CFR part 350).

(3) The performance of offsite

response organizations during biennial

exercises has confirmed that a biennial

frequency is sufficient to provide the

reasonable assurance finding.

(4) The existing regulation, 10 CFR

50.54(t), provides for an independent

review of the adequacy of the program.

(5) The existing requirement to

conduct an annual exercise is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. A biennial exercise

is sufficient to provide an acceptable

formal confirmation of capability.

(6) Reconsideration of the

requirement is warranted in light of the

completion and implementation of

enhanced emergency preparedness

facilities, the current level of industry

proficiency and performance, and the

increased industry sensitivity to

emergency preparedness.

(7) Personnel could be utilized more

effectively in their normal professional

function 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 utilized more effectively to

further the development and

maintenance of emergency preparedness

activities.

Commission Response

The Commission believes that it is

important, in light of public comment,

as well as the discussion provided in

the petition, to clarify NRC’s intent

(under the existing rule) that licensees

need not conduct annual exercises with

scenarios that progress to severe core

damage or result in offsite releases.

Historically, these scenarios were used

in both the biennial full-participation

exercise of offsite emergency plans and

the annual exercise of the licensee’s
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 30131

onsite emergency plan; this is no longer

necessary for the currently required

annual exercises of the licensee’s onsite

emergency plan. Information Notice (IN)

87–54, ‘‘Emergency Response

Exercises,’’ was issued to clarify NRC

intent in this regard and to provide

detailed guidance, specifically on the

types of ‘‘off-year’’ training activities

that licensees can perform during the

interval between the biennial full

participation exercises to maintain

adequate EP response capabilities and to

satisfy the rule.

Some licensees have availed

themselves of the flexibility afforded by

the IN 87–54 guidance to conduct

realistic, interactive ‘‘off-year’’ training

activities that simulate less severe

events, such as a minor fire, loss of

electric power, or equipment failure,

and focus on the capability of the onsite

emergency response organization to

diagnose problems and develop actions

to successfully mitigate the scenario

event. However, as noted in the petition,

many licensees continue to employ

severe accident scenarios in annual

exercises of their onsite emergency

plans.

Accordingly, the Commission is

revising Section IV.F.2.b. of 10 CFR part

50, appendix E, to (1) reduce from

annual to biennial the frequency of

exercising the licensee’s onsite

emergency plan (which may be

included in the biennial full

participation exercise specified in

IV.F.2.c.) and (2) require licensees to

conduct training drills, including at

least one drill involving a combination

of some of the principal functional areas

of the licensee’s onsite emergency

response capabilities. This drill would

be conducted between biennial full

participation exercises to ensure that

adequate emergency response

capabilities are maintained. The

principal functional areas of emergency

response include activities such as

management and coordination of

emergency response, accident

assessment, protective action

decisionmaking, and plant system repair

and corrective actions.

This approach is consistent with a

comment from one State that favored

the petition for rulemaking but preferred

that some guidelines be included in

appendix E requiring plant specific

internal exercises during the ‘‘off-year’’

to ensure plant personnel familiarity

with their response plans rather than

the vague expectancy that this activity

will be done. Furthermore, licensees

would continue to enable State and

local governments in the plume

exposure pathway EPZs to participate in

drills in the interval between exercises,

thus, preserving their training

opportunities.

The Commission believes that the

final rule may result in the reallocation

and more effective utilization of

resources in some licensees’ emergency

preparedness (EP) programs as they

further the development and

maintenance of emergency preparedness

capabilities during the ‘‘off-year’’

periods. However, it is not clear that

these changes will result in significant

overall cost savings. The Commission

cautions specifically against

expectations that the final rule will

necessarily result in significant

reductions in NRC inspection activity

concerning licensees’ ‘‘off-year’’ EP

maintenance activities. Also, licensees

will, upon request, submit scenarios for

NRC review as may be deemed

necessary by NRC in support of future

inspections.

Conclusion

Having considered the arguments

presented by the petitioner as well as

evaluating all public comments

received, and based on a further

understanding of the issues involved

gained from 14 years of experience

evaluating licensee emergency

preparedness exercises, the Commission

concludes that (1) the required

frequency for exercising the licensee’s

onsite emergency plan should be

reduced from annual to biennial, (2) the

means by which licensees are expected

to train and maintain their emergency

response capabilities and readiness in

the 2-year interval between evaluated

exercises should be changed to require

licensees to conduct drills, including at

least one drill involving a combination

of some of the principal functional areas

of the licensee’s onsite emergency

response capabilities, and (3)

opportunities for training of State and

local Government personnel must be

preserved.

The principal functional areas of

emergency response include

management and coordination of

emergency response, accident

assessment, protective action

decisionmaking, and plant system repair

and corrective actions.

During the specified drills, activation

of all of the licensee’s emergency

response facilities (Technical Support

Center (TSC), Operations Support

Center (OSC); and the Emergency

Operations Facility (EOF)) would not be

necessary. Licensees would have the

opportunity to consider accident

management strategies, supervised

instruction would be permitted,

operating staff would have the

opportunity to resolve problems

(success paths) rather than have

controllers intervene, and the drills

could focus on onsite training

objectives.

The final rule relieves licensees from

the current requirement to conduct a

full formal exercise of the licensee’s

onsite emergency plan annually, and

gives licensees the flexibility to choose

the activities to be conducted in the 2-

year period between biennial fullparticipation exercises in order to

maintain their emergency response

capabilities. Greater flexibility in the

training of the onsite emergency

response organization can provide

significant benefits to some licensees.

For example, licensees can eliminate the

practice of developing scenarios that

proceed to severe core damage, offsite

releases, or to higher emergency

classification levels. Licensees will have

greater opportunity to conduct realistic

emergency response training with

supervised instruction that allows the

operating staff to consider accident

management strategies, diagnose

problems, and be given credit for

actions that would mitigate scenario

events.

This approach is also responsive to

public commenters who expressed

concern about a possible decrease in

licensee training and readiness in the

period between biennial exercises.

Under this approach, licensees will still

be required to conduct emergency

response training and drills of the onsite

emergency response organization, as

well as provide training opportunities to

State and local Government personnel

during the interval between biennial

exercises. The final rule completes NRC

action in response to PRM–50–58. The

final rule grants the petitioner’s request

that the frequency of required onsite

emergency response plan exercises be

reduced from annual to biennial.

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

being revised in order to correct a

typographical error that appeared in the

1993 edition of Title 10, Parts 0 to 50

of the Code of Federal Regulations. In

the 1993 edition, the word ‘‘protection’’

was substituted for ‘‘protective

measures’’ in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). This

action corrects this paragraph to read as

follows: ‘‘* * * reasonable assurance

that adequate protective measures can

and will be taken * * *’’

Finding of No Significant

Environmental Impact: Availability

The Commission has determined

under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the

Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

part 51, subpart A, that this rule is not

a major Federal action significantly
30132 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

affecting the quality of the human

environment and therefore, an

environmental impact statement is not

required. The rule will update and

clarify the emergency planning

regulations relating to exercises. It does

not involve any modification to any

plant or revise the need for or the

standards for emergency plans. There is

no adverse effect on the quality 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final rule does not contain a new

or amended information collection

requirement subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et. seq.). Existing requirements were

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget approval Number 3150–

0011.

Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a

regulatory analysis on this final

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 Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Single copies of the

analysis may be obtained from Michael

T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001; Telephone: (301) 415–

6534.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The final rule does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The final rule

updates and clarifies the emergency

planning regulations relating to

exercises at nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plant licensees do not

fall within the 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), the Commission hereby

certifies that the final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

Backfit Analysis

The final rule clarifies the intent of

the existing regulation and facilitates

greater flexibility in licensees’ conduct

of ‘‘off-year’’ emergency response

training activities. This action does not

seek to impose any new or increased

requirements in this area. The changes

permit, but do not require, licensees to

change their existing emergency plans

and procedures to employ scenarios in

‘‘off-year’’ training or drills that do not

go to severe core damage or result in

offsite exposures. No backfitting is

intended or approved in connection

with this final rule change.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

Antitrust, Classified information,

Criminal penalties, Fire protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

power plants and reactors, Penalty,

Radiation protection, Reactor siting

criteria, reporting and record keeping

requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

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

is adopting the following amendments

to 10 CFR part 50.

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 50

continues to read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

2236, 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—Emergency Planning and

Preparedness for Production and Utilization

Facilities

IV. Content of Emergency Plans

F. Training

* * * * *

2. * * *

b. Each licensee at each site shall

conduct an exercise of its onsite

emergency plan every 2 years. The

exercise may be included in the full

participation biennial exercise required

by paragraph 2.c. of this section. In

addition, the licensee shall take actions

necessary to ensure that adequate

emergency response capabilities are

maintained during the interval between

biennial exercises by conducting drills,

including at least one drill involving a

combination of some of the principal

functional areas of the licensee’s onsite

emergency response capabilities. The

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 these

drills, activation of all of the licensee’s

emergency response facilities (Technical

Support Center (TSC), Operations

Support Center (OSC), and the

Emergency Operations Facility (EOF))

would not be necessary, licensees

would have the opportunity to consider

accident management strategies,

supervised instruction would be

permitted, operating staff would have

the opportunity to resolve problems

(success paths) rather than have

controllers intervene, and the drills

could focus on onsite training

objectives.

* * * * *

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, MD., this 10th day of

June, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–15155 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P