Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 75085-75090 [E5-7518]
Download as PDF
75085
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 70, No. 242
Monday, December 19, 2005
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[Docket No. PRM–50–79]
Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial
of Petition for Rulemaking
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is denying a petition
for rulemaking submitted by Mr.
Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 cosigners on September 4, 2002. The
petition was docketed by the NRC on
September 23, 2002, and has been
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
daycare centers and nursery schools in
the vicinity 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 https://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
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this site, the public
can gain entry into the NRC’s
Agencywide Document Access and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 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), 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
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 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 were
further amplified by FEMA Guidance
Memorandum (GM) EV–2, ‘‘Protective
Actions for School Children’’ and
FEMA–REP–14, ‘‘Radiological
Emergency Preparedness Exercise
Manual.’’
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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
daycare 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 shall, 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
75086
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
• Determine and provide for
transportation and relocation.
All plans are finalized and submitted
to FEMA for review. 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.
Availability of Documents
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 https://
ruleforum.llnl.gov. Selected documents
may be viewed and downloaded
electronically via this Web site.
The NRC is making the documents
identified below available to interested
persons through one or more of the
following:
The NRC’s public Electronic Reading
Room (ADAMS) is located at https://
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
Petition for Rulemaking (PRM–50–79) ...................................................................................................
Federal Register Notice—Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking (67 FR 66588; Nov. 1, 2002) ..............
Federal Register Notice—Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking; Correction (67 FR 67800; Nov. 7,
2002).
Public Comments, Part 1 of 2 ................................................................................................................
Public Comments, Part 2 of 2 ................................................................................................................
Additional Public Comments ...................................................................................................................
Letter of Denial to the Petitioners ...........................................................................................................
RG 1.101, Rev. 4, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors (July 2003)
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).
NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1 Addenda (March 2002) ..............................................................
Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management (July 20, 1979) ..........................................
MOU Between FEMA and NRC Relating to Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness
(June 17, 1993).
FEMA GM 24, Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons (April 5, 1984) .......
FEMA–REP–14, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Manual (September 1991) ............
FEMA GM EV–2, Protective Actions for School Children (November 13, 1986) ..................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
ML040770480
ML040770544
ML041910013
ML053260004
ML032020276
ML040420012
X
..........
NRC
staff
ML023110466
ML023050008
ML040770516
ML021050240
The Petitioners’ Request
This petition for rulemaking (PRM–
50–79) generally requests that the NRC
establish new rules requiring that
emergency planning for daycare centers
and nursery schools located in the
Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) be
included 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
daycare 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 evacuation.
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 in height.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 daycare
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.
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 daycare
centers and nursery schools within the
evacuation zone by emergency
management officials.
G. Participation of daycare centers
and nursery schools within the EPZ in
radiological emergency preparedness
exercises designed to determine each
institution’s state of readiness.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ADAMS
X
X
X
X
X
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 daycare centers and
nursery schools within the EPZ.
K. Radiological emergency
preparedness training for all daycare
center and nursery school employees
within the EPZ.
L. Listing of designated relocation
centers for daycare 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.
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
M. Establishment of toll-free or 911type telephone lines to provide
information about radiological
emergency plans and procedures for
daycare 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 daycare centers
and nursery schools.
Public Comments
The NRC received 55 public comment
letters relating to this petition. Twentyfour 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 one letter
that discussed KI but did not take a
position on the petition.
More specifically;
24 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 daycare centers 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.
1 Letter from the Governor of
Pennsylvania withdrawing an earlier
submitted letter, and supporting the
granting of the petition.
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
daycare centers and nursery schools
should be responsible for developing
their own emergency plans.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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.
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 daycare 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 daycare
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 daycare 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 daycare
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75087
evaluating adequacy of state and local
government offsite emergency plans and
preparedness for protecting school
children during a radiological
emergency. It specifically addresses
licensed and government supported preschools and daycare centers, but has
been implemented to include all
daycare centers and nursery schools
with more than 10 children.
FEMA is the federal agency
responsible for making findings and
determinations as to whether state and
local emergency plans are adequate and
whether there is 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 daycare centers
and nursery schools. In accordance with
10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii), if significant
deficiencies in a licensee’s emergency
plan were discovered after its 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
daycare 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 (pp. 2
and 4) specifies that state and local
government offsite emergency plans
should designate relocation centers
outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all
schools, including daycare centers and
nursery schools. FEMA assesses offsite
emergency plans using this guidance
when making a finding that a plan
adequately protects the public. Under
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
75088
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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
daycare 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 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
(pp. 2 and 4) specifies that the state and
local government offsite emergency
plans should designate transportation to
relocation centers outside of the 10-mile
EPZ for all schools including daycare
centers and nursery schools. 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
daycare 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 daycare 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 for
agreements between bus drivers and
local authorities to be similar to the
requested detailed driver lists and backup driver requirements. FEMA’s GM
EV–2 (p. 10) specifies that bus drivers
trained in basic radiological
preparedness and dosimetry are to be
provided for the evacuation of daycare
centers and nursery schools. FEMA’s
GM EV–2 (p. 10) also specifies that
agreements between bus drivers and
local authorities are to be established for
the drivers to provide their services in
an emergency. These agreements
eliminate the need for a roster. Under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
the MOU between FEMA and the NRC,
the NRC defers to FEMA’s expertise in
state and local emergency plan
requirements and assessments. NRC has
made FEMA aware of the petitioners’
concerns, and FEMA recently
completed an emergency preparedness
exercise at TMI that included issues
related to transportation of students
attending daycare centers and nursery
schools. FEMA’s final report on this
exercise was issued on August 4, 2005.
FEMA identified no deficiencies in this
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 requirements
and guidance are adequate. Although
the petition requested that daycare
centers and nursery schools have the
responsibility for conveying their
emergency planning information to
government officials, under current
requirements, this responsibility resides
with state and local government
officials. FEMA’s GM EV–2 (p. 5)
specifies that the state and local
government officials should take the
initiative to identify and contact all
daycare centers and nursery schools
within the designated 10-mile plume
exposure pathway EPZ to assure that
there exists appropriate planning for
protecting the health and safety of their
students from a commercial nuclear
power plant accident.
NRC and FEMA expect local
governments to assume responsibility
for the emergency planning and
preparedness for all schools within their
districted area, and to work closely with
school officials to coordinate planning
efforts. FEMA’s GM EV–2 (pp. 5 and 6)
specifies that local governments should
also ensure that the emergency planning
undertaken by schools is integrated
within the larger state and local
government offsite emergency
management framework for the
particular nuclear power plant site.
FEMA’s GM EV–2 ( pp. 5 and 6)
specifies that evacuation planning is to
include a separate evacuation plan for
all of the schools in each school system.
School officials, with the assistance of
state and local government offsite
authorities, 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 offsite organization
and state and local government officials
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, including 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 implementing 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, 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
daycare centers and nursery schools
within the evacuation zone by
emergency management officials.
NRC Review: Inspections of daycare
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 daycare centers and nursery schools.
G. Require the participation of
daycare centers and nursery schools
within the EPZ in radiological
emergency preparedness exercises
designed to determine each institution’s
state of readiness.
NRC Review: FEMA’s GM EV–2 (pp.
6 and 7) specifies that offsite
organizations, with assigned
responsibilities for protecting daycare
centers and nursery schools, are to
demonstrate their ability to protect the
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
students in an exercise. This ensures
that in a radiological emergency, plans
for protecting daycare centers and
nursery schools will be enacted
successfully while preventing
disruption to the children attending
these schools. Current NRC regulations
in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, reflect
this FEMA guidance. Section F.2 of
Appendix E permits exercises without
public (including daycare 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 daycare center and
nursery school activities that might arise
during exercise participation. In
addition, as mentioned in the response
to request ‘‘E,’’ pursuant to FEMA
guidance, state and local government
officials should be contacting daycare
centers and nursery schools regarding
emergency plans for the facilities. 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 daycare centers
and nursery schools have mechanisms
in place for maintaining child
accountability. FEMA, 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 childrens’ location
following an emergency evacuation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
75089
J. Require stocking of KI pills and
appropriate educational materials at all
daycare 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 under the 44 CFR 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 daycare
center and nursery school employees
within the 10-mile EPZ.
NRC Review: The Commission
believes that specialized training for
daycare 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 daycare center
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 (p. 4)
specifies that state and local government
offsite emergency plans are to designate
relocation centers outside of the 10-mile
EPZ for all schools, including daycare
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 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
daycare centers in state and local
government offsite emergency plans.
This was verified by the state
governments that submitted comment
letters which stated that daycare 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
1 See 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
daycare 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
that include information about
evacuation plans and designated
relocation centers for daycare 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 daycare center and
nursery school parents of the status and
location of their children, in the event
of an emergency. FEMA has decided
that it is unnecessary to incorporate
such a prescriptive requirement into its
regulations and guidance, and 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
75090
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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. Appendix 4 in
NUREG–0654, discusses ‘‘special
facility populations.’’ Daycare centers
and nursery schools fall under the
definition of ‘‘special facility
populations’’ and as such, state and
local governments are currently
required to ensure that these
populations are 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 daycare centers and nursery
schools.
4. Ensure that NRC Actions Are
Effective, Efficient, Realistic and Timely:
The proposed revisions would decrease
efficiency and effectiveness 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 daycare
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 NRC’s 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 13th day
of December, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5–7518 Filed 12–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
2 FEMA 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
daycare centers. No deficiencies were identified by
FEMA during the exercise. FEMA’s final report on
the exercise was issued on August 4, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–158080–04]
RIN 1545–BE79
Application of Section 409A to
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
Plans; Correction
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains
corrections to a notice of proposed
rulemaking that was published in the
Federal Register on Tuesday, October 4,
2005 (70 FR 57930) regarding the
application of section 409A to
nonqualified deferred compensation
plans. The regulations affect service
providers receiving amounts of deferred
compensation, and the service
recipients for whom the service
providers provide services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Tackney, (202) 927–9639 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The notice of proposed rulemaking
(REG–158080–04) that is the subject of
these corrections are under section
409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–158080–04) contains
errors that may prove to be misleading
and are in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–158080–04), that was
the subject of FR Doc. 05–19379, is
corrected as follows:
1. On page 57930, column 3, in the
preamble under the paragraph heading
‘‘B. Section 457 Plans’’, second
paragraph, third line from the bottom of
the column, the language, ‘‘under
§ 1.409A–1(b)(5) of these’’ is corrected
to read ‘‘under § 1.409A–1(b)(4) or (5)’’.
2. On page 57931, column 1, in the
preamble under the paragraph heading
‘‘B. Section 457 Plans’’, first paragraph
of the column, third line from the
bottom, the language, ‘‘1(a)(4) of these
proposed regulations to’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘1(a)(5) of these proposed
regulations to’’.
3. On page 57933, column 1, in the
preamble under the paragraph heading
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75085-75090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7518]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 75085]]
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 denying a petition
for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 co-
signers on September 4, 2002. The petition was docketed by the NRC on
September 23, 2002, and has been 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 daycare centers and nursery schools in the vicinity 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 https://
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 https://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 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), 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 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 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 were further amplified by FEMA Guidance
Memorandum (GM) EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children'' and
FEMA-REP-14, ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Manual.''
The Commission's emergency planning regulations for nuclear power
reactors are contained in 10 CFR Part 50, specifically Sec. 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 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 daycare 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 shall, 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
[[Page 75086]]
Determine and provide for transportation and relocation.
All plans are finalized and submitted to FEMA for review. 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.
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 https://
ruleforum.llnl.gov. Selected documents may be viewed and downloaded
electronically via this Web site.
The NRC's public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) is located at
https://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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC
Document PDR Web ADAMS staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-50-79)........... X X ML023110466
Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML023050008
for Rulemaking (67 FR 66588; Nov. 1, 2002).
Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML040770516
for Rulemaking; Correction (67 FR 67800; Nov.
7, 2002).
Public Comments, Part 1 of 2.................. X X ML040770480
Public Comments, Part 2 of 2.................. X X ML040770544
Additional Public Comments.................... ....... X ML041910013
Letter of Denial to the Petitioners........... X X ML053260004
RG 1.101, Rev. 4, Emergency Planning and X ....... ML032020276
Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors (July
2003).
NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1 Criteria for X ....... ML040420012
Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in
Support of Nuclear Power Plants (November
1980).
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 Addenda (March X ....... ML021050240
2002).
Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency X
Management (July 20, 1979).
MOU Between FEMA and NRC Relating to X
Radiological Emergency Planning and
Preparedness (June 17, 1993).
FEMA GM 24, Radiological Emergency X
Preparedness for Handicapped Persons (April
5, 1984).
FEMA-REP-14, Radiological Emergency X
Preparedness Exercise Manual (September 1991).
FEMA GM EV-2, Protective Actions for School X
Children (November 13, 1986).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners' Request
This petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79) generally requests that
the NRC establish new rules requiring that emergency planning for
daycare centers and nursery schools located in the Emergency Planning
Zone (EPZ) be included 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 daycare 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 evacuation.
C. 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.
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 daycare 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.
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 daycare centers and nursery schools
within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials.
G. Participation of daycare 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 daycare centers and nursery schools within
the EPZ.
K. Radiological emergency preparedness training for all daycare
center and nursery school employees within the EPZ.
L. Listing of designated relocation centers for daycare 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.
[[Page 75087]]
M. Establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines to
provide information about radiological emergency plans and procedures
for daycare 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 daycare centers and nursery schools.
Public Comments
The NRC received 55 public comment letters relating to this
petition. Twenty-four 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 one letter that discussed KI but did not take a position on
the petition.
More specifically;
24 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 daycare
centers 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.
1 Letter from the Governor of Pennsylvania withdrawing an earlier
submitted letter, and supporting the granting of the petition.
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
daycare 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.
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 daycare
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
daycare 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 daycare 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 daycare 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. It
specifically addresses licensed and government supported pre-schools
and daycare centers, but has been implemented to include all daycare
centers and nursery schools with more than 10 children.
FEMA is the federal agency responsible for making findings and
determinations as to whether state and local emergency plans are
adequate and whether there is 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 daycare
centers and nursery schools. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii),
if significant deficiencies in a licensee's emergency plan were
discovered after its 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 daycare 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 (pp. 2 and 4) specifies that state
and local government offsite emergency plans should designate
relocation centers outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all schools,
including daycare centers and nursery schools. FEMA assesses offsite
emergency plans using this guidance when making a finding that a plan
adequately protects the public. Under
[[Page 75088]]
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 daycare 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 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 (pp. 2 and 4)
specifies that the state and local government offsite emergency plans
should designate transportation to relocation centers outside of the
10-mile EPZ for all schools including daycare centers and nursery
schools. 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 daycare 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 daycare 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 for agreements between bus drivers and local authorities to be
similar to the requested detailed driver lists and back-up driver
requirements. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 10) specifies that bus drivers trained
in basic radiological preparedness and dosimetry are to be provided for
the evacuation of daycare centers and nursery schools. FEMA's GM EV-2
(p. 10) also specifies that agreements between bus drivers and local
authorities are to be established for the drivers to provide their
services in an emergency. These agreements eliminate the need for a
roster. Under the MOU between FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to
FEMA's expertise in state and local emergency plan requirements and
assessments. NRC has made FEMA aware of the petitioners' concerns, and
FEMA recently completed an emergency preparedness exercise at TMI that
included issues related to transportation of students attending daycare
centers and nursery schools. FEMA's final report on this exercise was
issued on August 4, 2005. FEMA identified no deficiencies in this 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 requirements
and guidance are adequate. Although the petition requested that daycare
centers and nursery schools have the responsibility for conveying their
emergency planning information to government officials, under current
requirements, this responsibility resides with state and local
government officials. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5) specifies that the state
and local government officials should take the initiative to identify
and contact all daycare centers and nursery schools within the
designated 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ to assure that there
exists appropriate planning for protecting the health and safety of
their students from a commercial nuclear power plant accident.
NRC and FEMA expect local governments to assume responsibility for
the emergency planning and preparedness for all schools within their
districted area, and to work closely with school officials to
coordinate planning efforts. FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 5 and 6) specifies
that local governments should also ensure that the emergency planning
undertaken by schools is integrated within the larger state and local
government offsite emergency management framework for the particular
nuclear power plant site.
FEMA's GM EV-2 ( pp. 5 and 6) specifies that evacuation planning is
to include a separate evacuation plan for all of the schools in each
school system. School officials, with the assistance of state and local
government offsite authorities, 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 offsite organization and state and local
government 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, including 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 implementing 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, 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 daycare centers and nursery
schools within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials.
NRC Review: Inspections of daycare 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
daycare centers and nursery schools.
G. Require the participation of daycare centers and nursery schools
within the EPZ in radiological emergency preparedness exercises
designed to determine each institution's state of readiness.
NRC Review: FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 6 and 7) specifies that offsite
organizations, with assigned responsibilities for protecting daycare
centers and nursery schools, are to demonstrate their ability to
protect the
[[Page 75089]]
students in an exercise. This ensures that in a radiological emergency,
plans for protecting daycare centers and nursery schools will be
enacted successfully while preventing disruption to the children
attending these schools. Current NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix E, reflect this FEMA guidance. Section F.2 of Appendix E
permits exercises without public (including daycare 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 daycare center and nursery school activities
that might arise during exercise participation. In addition, as
mentioned in the response to request ``E,'' pursuant to FEMA guidance,
state and local government officials should be contacting daycare
centers and nursery schools regarding emergency plans for the
facilities. 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 daycare centers and nursery schools have
mechanisms in place for maintaining child accountability. FEMA, 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 childrens' location
following an emergency evacuation.
J. Require stocking of KI pills and appropriate educational
materials at all daycare 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 under the 44 CFR 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
daycare center and nursery school employees within the 10-mile EPZ.
NRC Review: The Commission believes that specialized training for
daycare 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
daycare center 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 (p. 4) specifies that state and local
government offsite emergency plans are to designate relocation centers
outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all schools, including daycare 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Require establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines,
to provide information about radiological emergency plans and
procedures for daycare 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 that include information about evacuation plans and designated
relocation centers for daycare 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 daycare center and nursery school
parents of the status and location of their children, in the event of
an emergency. FEMA has decided that it is unnecessary to incorporate
such a prescriptive requirement into its regulations and guidance, and
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 daycare centers in state and local government
offsite emergency plans. This was verified by the state governments
that submitted comment letters which stated that daycare 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
[[Page 75090]]
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. Appendix 4 in NUREG-0654, discusses
``special facility populations.'' Daycare centers and nursery schools
fall under the definition of ``special facility populations'' and as
such, state and local governments are currently required to ensure that
these populations are 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 daycare centers and nursery
schools.
4. Ensure that NRC Actions Are Effective, Efficient, Realistic and
Timely: The proposed revisions would decrease efficiency and
effectiveness 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
daycare 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 NRC's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FEMA 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 daycare
centers. No deficiencies were identified by FEMA during the
exercise. FEMA's final report on the exercise was issued on August
4, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-50-79.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5-7518 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P