Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67333

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet

at the NRC Web site, http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brian W. Sheron,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31927 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC,

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1

and 2; Exemption

1.0 Background

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

(Exelon or the licensee), is the holder of

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF–

39 and NPF–85, which authorize

operation of the Limerick Generating

Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. The

licenses provide, among other things,

that the facility is subject to all rules,

regulations, and orders of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC,

the Commission) now or hereafter in

effect.

The facility consists of two boilingwater reactors located at the licensee’s

site in Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania.

2.0 Request/Action

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, Appendix

E, Section IV.F.2.b requires each

licensee at each site to conduct an

exercise of its onsite emergency plan

every two years and indicates the

exercise may be included in the fullparticipation biennial exercise required

by paragraph 2.c. of the same section. In

addition, licensees are to take actions

necessary to ensure that adequate

emergency response capabilities are

maintained during the interval between

biennial exercises by conducting drills.

Paragraph 2.c. requires offsite plans for

each site to be exercised biennially with

full participation by each offsite

authority having a role under the plan.

Normally during such biennial fullparticipation exercises, the NRC

evaluates onsite, and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) evaluates offsite, emergency

preparedness activities.

By letter dated October 16, 2001,

Exelon requested an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix E, Sections IV.F.2.c, regarding

the conduct of a full-participation

exercise at LGS. The exemption would

allow the licensee to postpone the

biennial full-participation exercise up to

the end of 2002. However, the next fullparticipation exercise will continue to

be scheduled biennially from 2001.

Exelon is among several licensees

requesting exercise exemptions in the

wake of the national emergency of

September 11, 2001. It is recognized that

it was not appropriate to conduct an

exercise during the period of disruption

and heightened security after the

national emergency. The State of

Pennsylvania was initially involved

with the recovery response to the

national emergency and continues to

respond to heightened security needs.

Considering the extraordinary

circumstances, a schedular exemption is

acceptable. However, in this period of

heightened security concerns regarding

nuclear plant vulnerability, it is prudent

to conduct the full-participation

exercise as soon as practical to

demonstrate and maintain readiness.

The licensee is faced with a difficult

task to coordinate and schedule an

exercise that involves multiple

governmental agencies at the Federal,

State, and local level. Many local

response organizations depend on

volunteers. In order to accommodate

this task, the NRC has allowed licensees

to schedule full-participation exercises

at any time during the calendar

biennium. This gives the licensee the

flexibility to schedule the exercise

within a 12– to 36–month window and

still meet the biennial requirement

specified in the regulations.

It should be noted that the licensee

requested relief from 10 CFR part 50,

appendix E, section IV.F.2.c. While the

intent of the request is clear, the NRC

staff determined that a schedular

exemption from the onsite exercise

requirements of 10 CFR part 50,

appendix E, section IV.F.2. b, was also

necessary. The following evaluation

addresses the technical issues necessary

to grant a schedular exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR part 50,

appendix E, sections IV.F.2.b and c, to

conduct an evaluated biennial exercise.

3.0 Discussion

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)

the exemptions are authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to public

health or safety, and are consistent with

the common defense and security; and

(2) when special circumstances are

present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)

special circumstances are present

whenever the exemption would provide

only temporary relief from the

applicable regulation and the licensee or

applicant has made good faith efforts to

comply with the regulation.

The licensee was scheduled to

conduct a biennial full-participation

exercise on November 1, 2001. The

requested exemption is to postpone that

exercise and conduct it during 2002.

The interval between biennial exercises

could be as long as 39 months, if the

exercise were conducted in December of

2002. However, the licensee stated that

the rescheduled exercise is expected to

take place in the first or second quarter

of 2002. If the licensee does conduct the

exercise within the second quarter of

2002, the period between exercises

would be about 33 months and within

the normal parameters of exercise

conduct, in which a period of 36

months is acceptable as long as the

sequential exercises are conducted

within the calender biennium. However,

given that other 2001 exercises in NRC

Region I will be rescheduled into 2002,

the licensee may have difficulty

finalizing the schedule by the end of the

second quarter. To reschedule this

exercise, the licensee will have to

coordinate with local and State

supporting agencies as well as NRC

Region I and FEMA Region III. This

effort will be complicated by the fact

that NRC and FEMA will have to

support the normally scheduled

exercises in addition to the rescheduled

exercises during 2002. Increased

flexibility may be necessary for

scheduling of Federal resources more so

than local or utility resources. This

being the case, a schedular exemption

for conduct of the exercise within

calendar year 2002 is appropriate, with

the understanding that the licensee will

conduct the exercise as soon as

practicable.

LGS successfully conducted a fullparticipation exercise on September 14,

1999, which was evaluated by the NRC

(Inspection Report No. 50–352;353/99–

06) and FEMA (Final Exercise Report

LGS 03/01/00.) The results of this

exercise determined that the overall

performance of the emergency response

organization demonstrated that onsite

emergency plans are adequate and that

the organization is capable of

implementing these plans. No violations

of NRC requirements or exercise

weaknesses were identified and the

licensee stated that performance issues

identified in the critique were entered

into the corrective action process and

addressed.

The licensee stated that subsequent to

the September 14, 1999, fullVerDate 11<MAY>2000 21:36 Dec 27, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 28DEN1
67334 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

participation exercise, LGS conducted

emergency response training drills on

June 14, 2000, June 21, 2000, October

18, 2000, November 15, 2000, December

12, 2000, February 15, 2001, May 12,

2001, and June 20, 2001. A pre-exercise

drill was also conducted on September

27, 2001. The licensee stated that there

was at least partial offsite participation

in the June 21, 2000, November 15,

2000, December 12, 2000, June 20, 2001,

and September 27, 2001, drills. In

addition, emergency response training

drills involving control room staff were

conducted on January 20, 2000, January

27, 2000, February 3, 2000, February 10,

2000, February 17, 2000, January 12,

2001, January 19, 2001, January 26,

2001, February 2, 2001, and February 9,

2001. The licensee stated that these

drills satisfy the drill requirements of 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section

IV.F.2.b. The licensee stated that drill

critiques verified that the emergency

plan and its implementing procedures

were successfully implemented. Issues

identified during these drills, exercises,

and associated critiques are being

resolved under the station’s corrective

action program.

The licensee stated that compensating

measures will be taken to maintain

emergency preparedness at LGS until

the postponed exercise is conducted.

The existing training and drill schedule

currently in place for emergency

response activities will remain in place

and be adjusted as necessary to ensure

the readiness of both onsite and offsite

emergency response personnel. This

includes annual training,

requalification, and participation drills

for onsite emergency responders. The

licensee stated that these measures will

be implemented to maintain an

acceptable level of emergency

preparedness during this period.

The Pennsylvania Emergency

Management Agency (PEMA) has

requested that FEMA postpone the

exercise into 2002. The licensee and

PEMA stated that offsite local, State,

and Federal government agencies that

are required to participate in the LGS

biennial exercise are directly

participating in the response, recovery,

and other continuing activities

associated with the September 11, 2001,

national emergency.

The staff examined the licensee’s

rationale to support the exemption

request and concluded that granting the

exemption would provide only

temporary relief from the applicable

regulation and that the licensee had

made a good faith effort to comply with

the regulation. The national emergency

of September 11, 2001, and the

subsequent recovery and security

responses required that State and local

resources expected to be available for

the previously scheduled biennial

exercise be applied to agency missions.

Offsite agencies were not able to

dedicate the appropriate level of

resources, as it would divert public

agency resources from the national

emergency recovery efforts.

Additionally, the licensee’s drill

program includes offsite agency

participation and is a compensating

measure contributing to the justification

of the exemption.

The exemption only provides

temporary relief from the applicable

regulation, in that the licensee has

committed to conduct the exercise

during the next calendar year (2002) and

has not requested any permanent

changes in future exercise scheduling.

The licensee made a good faith effort to

conduct the exercise and comply with

regulations. The circumstances dictating

the request for exemption are beyond

the licensee’s control. The regulations of

this part do allow for the postponement

of exercises and the regulations have

been invoked for appropriate

circumstances. This being the case, the

occasional need to postpone exercises

was considered as a potential

circumstance. The staff has determined

that conduct of the full-participation

exercise as early as practical in 2002 is

prudent even though the licensee is

expected to conduct another fullparticipation exercise in 2003.

4.0 Conclusion

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by

law, will not present an undue risk to

the public health and safety, and is

consistent with the common defense

and security. Also, special

circumstances are present pursuant to

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), in that the

exemption would only provide

temporary relief from the applicable

regulations, and the licensee has made

a good faith effort to comply with the

regulation. Therefore, the Commission

hereby grants Exelon a one-time

schedular exemption from the

requirements to conduct an exercise of

its onsite and offsite (with fullparticipation by each offsite authority

having a role under the plan) emergency

plans every 2 years as required by 10

CFR part 50, appendix E, sections

IV.F.2.b and c. This conclusion is based

on the licensee’s commitment to

conduct the postponed exercise in 2002.

The staff notes that the licensee expects

to conduct the exercise in the first or

second quarter of 2002. The staff

recommends that the licensee schedule

the exercise as early as practical in

2002, but the exemption is not

predicated on the licensee following

this recommendation.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (66 FR 65231).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ledyard B. Marsh,

Acting Director, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31928 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

The UNPLUG Salem Campaign, the

National Whistleblower Center and Mr.

Randy Robarge Riverkeeper, Inc., et

al.; Receipt of Requests for Action

Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by the

following three petitions, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) was

requested to take immediate corrective

actions to protect the public against the

possibility of terrorists seizing control of

a large commercial jetliner and crashing

into a nuclear power plant in the United

States.

1. From Mr. Norm Cohen, on behalf

of the UNPLUG Salem Campaign, dated

September 17, 2001.

2. From Mr. Michael D. Kohn, on

behalf of the National Whistleblower

Center and Randy Robarge, dated

October 24, 2001.

3. From Messrs. Alex Matthiessen,

and Karl Coplan, on behalf of the

Riverkeeper, Inc., et al, dated November

8, 2001.

The petitioners requested that the

NRC staff take certain specified

compensatory measures, to protect the

public and environment from the

catastrophic impact of a terrorist attack

on a nuclear power plant or a spent fuel

pool.

These requests are being treated

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the

Commission’s regulations. These

requests have been referred to the

Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation. As provided by Section

2.206, appropriate action will be taken

on these petitions within a reasonable

time.

Since the subject of these petitions

involves safeguards matters, the NRC