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 http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and 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 http:// 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 http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Through this site, the public can gain access to the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and Management System, which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. NRC Staff Contact (NRC Staff) For single copies of documents not available in an electronic file format, contact Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–3224, e-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov. Document PDR Web 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 http://
ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing 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 http://
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 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Through this site, the public 
can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management 
System, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.

NRC Staff Contact (NRC Staff)

    For single copies of documents not available in an electronic file 
format, contact Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           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