Emergency Planning Zone, 25375-25378 [2012-10314]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25375
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 83
Monday, April 30, 2012
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.
issue of Thursday, April 19, 2012, make
the following correction:
On page 23420, in § 810.2240(a), the
table is corrected to read as set forth
below:
Grades and Grade Requirements
*
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
*
*
*
*
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration
7 CFR Part 810
RIN 0580–AB12
United States Standards for Wheat
Correction
PART 810 [CORRECTED]
In proposed rule document 2012–
9182 appearing on page 23420 in the
Maximum percent limits of:
Defects:
Damaged kernels
Heat (part of total) .........................................................................................
Total ...............................................................................................................
Foreign material ....................................................................................................
Shrunken and broken kernels ..............................................................................
Total 1 .............................................................................................................
Wheat of other classes: 2
Contrasting classes .......................................................................................
Total 3 .............................................................................................................
Stones ...................................................................................................................
[FR Doc. C1–2012–9182 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52
[PRM–50–104; NRC–2012–0046]
Emergency Planning Zone
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice
of receipt and request for comment.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is publishing for public comment a
notice of receipt for a petition for
rulemaking (PRM), dated February 15,
2012, which was filed with the NRC by
Mr. Michael Mariotte on behalf of the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Apr 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
0.2
2.0
0.4
2.0
3.0
0.2
4.0
0.7
4.0
5.0
0.5
7.0
1.3
8.0
8.0
1.0
10.0
3.0
12.0
12.0
.3.0
15.0
5.0
20.0
20.0
1.0
3.0
0.1
2.0
5.0
0.1
3.0
10.0
0.1
10.0
10.0
0.1
10.0
10.0
0.1
Nuclear Information and Resource
Service (NIRS or the petitioner) and 37
co-petitioners. The petition was
docketed by the NRC on February 17,
2012, and assigned Docket No. PRM–
50–104. The petitioner requests that the
NRC amend its regulations to expand
the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs)
for nuclear power plants.
DATES: Submit comments by July 16,
2012. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC is able to assure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this petition for rulemaking, which the
NRC possesses and is publicly available,
by searching on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
NRC–2012–0046. You may submit
comments by the following methods:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0046. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
25376
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch,
Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–492–
3667, email: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–
0046 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
petition for rulemaking. You may access
information related to this petition for
rulemaking, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0046.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
PRM is available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML12048B004.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2012–
0046 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information in
comment submissions that you do not
want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC
posts all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov as well as
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Apr 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information in
their comment submissions that they do
not want to be publicly disclosed. Your
request should state that the NRC will
not edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making
the comment submissions available to
the public or entering the comment
submissions into ADAMS.
II. The Petitioner and the 37 CoPetitioners
The PRM describes the petitioner and
the 37 co-petitioners as ‘‘environmental
and civic organizations with members
who live within 100 miles of U.S.
nuclear power plants and who are
concerned that current NRC emergency
planning requirements are not adequate
to protect their health and safety in the
event of an accident at the plant.’’
The NIRS is a non-profit organization
founded in 1978, which serves as a
‘‘national information and networking
center for people concerned about
nuclear power, radioactive waste,
radiation and sustainable energy
issues.’’ In addition, the NIRS is
described as an organization that
provides public education on issues
such as deregulation of radioactive
materials, new reactor licensing,
transportation of radioactive waste, and
nuclear reactor safety.
III. The Petition
The petitioner requests that the NRC
amend Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.47, ‘‘Emergency
Plans,’’ and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part
50, ‘‘Emergency Planning and
Preparedness for Production and
Utilization Facilities,’’ and include the
modifications in 10 CFR Part 52,
‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
for Nuclear Power Plants.’’ Specifically,
the petitioner requests that (1) the
Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ radius be
expanded from a 10-mile radius to a
25-mile radius, (2) a new 50-mile radius
Emergency Response Zone, with more
limited requirements than the Plume
Exposure Pathway EPZ, be established,
(3) the Ingestion Pathway EPZ radius be
expanded from a 50-mile radius to a
100-mile radius, and (4) the ‘‘emergency
plans are tested to encompass initiating
and/or concurrent natural disasters that
may affect both accident progression
and evacuation conduct.’’ The petitioner
asserts that ‘‘the requested amendments
are essential for the protection of public
health and safety in light of the realworld experience of the Chernobyl and
Fukushima disasters, which were more
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
severe and affected a much larger
geographical area than provided for in
NRC regulations.’’
The petitioner states that ‘‘[t]he NRC
should amend 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to
create a three-tiered emergency
planning zone * * *.’’ The petitioner’s
three-tiered EPZ includes a 25 mile
Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ, 50 mile
Emergency Response Zone, and 100
mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway Zone.
The following paragraphs provide a
summary of the petitioner’s proposed
revisions to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2).
25 Mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ
The petitioner proposes the following
revision to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) with
regards to the plume exposure pathway
EPZ:
A Plume Exposure Pathway zone shall
consist of an area about 25 miles (40 km) in
radius. Within this zone, detailed plans must
be developed to provide prompt and effective
evacuation and other appropriate protective
measures, including conducting of biannual
full-scale emergency evacuation drills. Sirens
will be installed within this zone to alert the
population of the need for evacuation.
Transportation for elderly, prison and school
populations shall be provided within this
zone. Emergency shelters shall be located
outside of the 25-mile zone.
The petitioner asserts that the
expansion of the plume exposure
pathway EPZ from a 10 mile radius to
a 25 mile radius ‘‘would provide no new
requirements other than expansion of
the EPZ.’’
50 Mile Emergency Response Zone
The petitioner proposes the following
revision to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) with
regards to an Emergency Response
Zone:
The [emergency response zone] shall be
about 50 miles in radius. Within this 50 mile
zone, the licensee must identify evacuation
routes for all residents within this zone and
annually provide information to all residents
within this zone about these routes and
which they are supposed to take in the event
of an emergency. The licensee must make
basic pre-arrangements for potential transport
of disabled/hospital/prison populations.
Emergency centers for the public currently
located less than 25 miles out shall be
relocated to 25 miles or further out.
Information shall be made available to the
public within this zone through television,
internet and radio alerts, text message
notices, and other appropriate means of
public communication.
The petitioner notes that this revision
‘‘would require measures be carried out
between the new 25 mile Plume
Exposure Pathway EPZ and a new
Emergency Response Zone of about a 50
mile radius.’’ The petitioner states that
the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emergency evacuation requirements and
biannual exercises are not required in
the Emergency Response Zone. The
petitioner further states ‘‘this new zone
would provide a modest level of preplanning that would enable rapid
expansion of the 25 mile zone when
necessary. Information regarding
evacuation such as identification of
evacuation routes and locations of
emergency shelters in the event of a
large scale disaster would be identified
and would be provided to members of
the public annually, and a limited
number of other pre-arrangements
would be made.’’
100 Mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway
Zone
The petitioner proposes the following
revision to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) with
regards to the ingestion pathway EPZ:
The ingestion pathway EPZ shall be about
100 miles in radius. In the event of a
radioactive release, the deposition of
radionuclides on crops, other vegetation,
bodies of surface water and ground surfaces
can occur. Measures will be implemented to
protect the public from eating and drinking
food and water that may be contaminated.
Information shall be made available to the
public within this zone through television
and radio alerts, text message notices, and
other appropriate means of public
communication.
The petitioner states that ‘‘[t]he
current Ingestion Exposure Pathway
Zone exists to protect food, water and
anything intended for human
consumption within 50 miles of a
nuclear power plant.’’ The petitioner
further states ‘‘[g]iven that radiation can,
and does, have far-reaching effects on
food on a large radius, the Ingestion
Pathway EPZ should be expanded.’’
Drills and Exercises
The petitioner proposes amending 10
CFR 50.47(b)(14) with regards to drills
and exercises by adding:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Within the emergency evacuation zone full
scale drills and exercises will be conducted
on a biannual basis. Every other exercise and
drill shall include a scenario involving an
initiating or concurrent regionallyappropriate natural disaster.
IV. The Petitioner’s Bases
The petitioner states, ‘‘[w]ith the
exception of a 2011 rule requiring
licensees to use current U.S. census data
to prepare evacuation time estimates
(ETEs) and update them every 10 years,
the NRC has made few significant
improvements to its offsite emergency
response regulations since they were
promulgated in 1980.’’ The petitioner
notes that ‘‘the NRC denied a set of
petitions [submitted by the Citizens
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Apr 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
Task Force of Chapel Hill, et al.] to
increase the size of the plume exposure
pathway EPZ and the ingestion pathway
EPZ’’ in 1990. The petitioner asserts that
‘‘[t]he Commission declined to revisit
the assumptions about severe reactor
accident risks that underlie its
emergency planning regulations,
concluding that the existing size of the
EPZs was adequate to achieve
‘reasonable and feasible dose reduction’
under the circumstances of each
individual reactor site.’’ The petitioner’s
bases for the petition are further
presented in the following paragraphs.
Chernobyl, September 11, and
Fukushima Experiences
The petitioner cites reports and
findings regarding the Chernobyl and
Fukushima Dai-ichi accidents, and the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to
support the petition. The petitioner
asserts that ‘‘[t]he accident at
Fukushima, added to the experience of
the Chernobyl disaster, demonstrates
that the 10 mile plume exposure
pathway EPZ and the 50 mile ingestion
pathway EPZ are inadequate to protect
the public health and safety, both
because severe accidents are clearly
more likely than any government
previously has estimated and because
their effects are far more widespread.’’
The petitioner specifically cites the
‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing
Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The
Near-Term Task Force Review of
Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident’’ (Fukushima Task Force
Report, ADAMS Accession No.
ML111861807), dated July 12, 2011. The
petitioner notes that the Task Force
formed to examine the Fukushima
disaster ‘‘addressed the issues of
protecting against accidents resulting
from natural phenomena, mitigating the
consequences of such accidents, and
ensuring emergency preparedness’’ in
the Fukushima Task Force Report. The
petitioner also notes that the Task Force
‘‘made several recommendations,
including strengthening and integrating
onsite emergency response capabilities
such as emergency operating
procedures, severe accident
management guidelines, and extensive
damage mitigation guidelines.’’ The
petitioner asserts that ‘‘the task force
failed to make any recommendations on
improving emergency response
capabilities or expanding EPZ size,
despite the Task Force’s
acknowledgement that it was necessary
to evacuate Japanese residents up to and
beyond a 20-kilometer (12-mile) area
around Fukushima.’’ As the petitioner
notes, the NRC is evaluating several
Task Force recommendations related to
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25377
emergency preparedness. More
information about these activities is
available through the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/japan/japaninfo.html.
Real-World Experience and Improved
Understanding of Severe Accident Risks
at Nuclear Reactors
The petitioner states that ‘‘[t]he NRC’s
existing emergency planning regulations
(and the NRC’s decision in Citizens
Task Force of Chapel Hill) are based
primarily on experience gained by the
Three Mile Island accident and on NRC
reactor safety studies conducted from
the 1950s through the 1970s (for
example, WASH–1400 and NUREG–
1150) and are encapsulated in NUREG–
0396.’’ The petitioner notes that in 2006,
‘‘the NRC began the State-of-the-Art
Reactor Consequence Analyses
(SOARCA) project to re-evaluate the
‘realistic consequences of a severe
reactor accident.’ ’’ The petitioner cites
an October 2010 draft of the SOARCA
report to support the petition. The
petitioner asserts that ‘‘real-world
experience at Fukushima trumps the
computer modeling of SOARCA in any
case and has presented the world—and
the NRC—with an actual accident that
exceeds postulated scenarios.’’ The
petitioner continues by stating
‘‘[c]omputer models, simulations,
evaluations of projected scenarios—all
can be useful tools in evaluating the
relative risks of complex systems like
nuclear reactors. They can even be
useful—in the absence of real-world
information—in establishing
regulations. But they exist primarily to
generate postulated data in the absence
of actual data—they are not a substitute
for actual, real-world experience.’’
Real-World Experience and Improved
Understanding of Severe Accident Risks
at [Spent] Fuel Pools
The petitioner states that ‘‘[spent] fuel
pools pose a serious and dangerous
threat to the populations surrounding
nuclear plants. Accidents could cause
widespread contamination of highly
radioactive materials.’’ The petitioner
asserts that ‘‘[r]adiation exposure would
be significantly worse if there were to be
[a spent] fuel pool accident in addition
to a reactor accident.’’ The petitioner
makes the following statement regarding
spent fuel pools: ‘‘In theory, this form of
storage is meant to be temporary. But,
because offsite storage of irradiated fuel
is currently unavailable, high density
storage of this material has been
permitted to occur.’’ The petitioner also
states, ‘‘Aside from concerns associated
with the dense packing of a pool, the
pools themselves are located outside of
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
25378
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the primary containment which is
designed to keep radiation which is
released during an emergency event
from escaping in to the environment.
Because they are outside of the primary
containment structure, they are more
vulnerable than the core to natural
disasters and terrorist attacks.’’
Improved Understanding of Health
Effects of Radiation
The petitioner states ‘‘[t]here is no
‘safe’ dose of radiation, and as such the
consideration of the effects of release of
radiation should be given greater
consideration.’’ The petitioner cites the
2006 National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
(BEIR) VII Report and asserts the report
confirms that ‘‘any exposure to
radiation—including background
radiation—increases a person’s risk of
developing cancer.’’ The petitioner
states that ‘‘the NRC and licensees must
recognize that their emergency response
programs must be designed to protect
not only against radiation levels that
would cause acute effects, but also
radiation levels that would exceed
annual exposure limits * * *.’’ The
petitioner asserts that ‘‘a government
policy that implicitly states, as do NRC’s
existing emergency planning
regulations, that radiation exposure
levels higher than normally allowable—
by orders of magnitude—are acceptable
under emergency conditions, is a
government policy that is unsupportable
and without basis in reality.’’
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Particular Problems Associated With
Pressure Suppression Containments
16:34 Apr 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
Natural Disasters and Emergency
Response Planning
The petitioner states that ‘‘[n]atural
disasters have become increasingly
prevalent in recent years causing
concerns for nuclear reactors that are
susceptible to various weather
phenomena and disasters.’’ The
petitioner asserts that ‘‘[c]urrent NRC
emergency planning regulations do not
reflect that natural disasters can both
cause nuclear accidents and/or may
occur concurrently with nuclear
accidents.’’ The petitioner requests the
following:
Emergency response planning for nuclear
facilities must incorporate regionally-relevant
initiating and concurrent natural disasters as
a regular part of emergency exercises, to
assure the most effective possible emergency
response in the event of a nuclear accident
triggered by or complicated by a natural
disaster. For this reason, we propose that
every other emergency exercise include a
scenario that includes a regionally-relevant
initiating and concurrent natural disaster. By
‘‘regionally relevant’’ we mean that plans
should be made and exercises undertaken for
the type of natural disaster most likely to
affect a given licensee site * * *. However,
for areas that may be affected by more than
one type of natural disaster * * * each
exercise should include a different regionally
relevant scenario.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of April 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–10314 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
The petitioner asserts that ‘‘[t]he
failure of a pressure suppression
containment can result in widespread
radioactive contamination of areas
surrounding nuclear plants.’’ The
petitioner states, ‘‘In Japan, hydrogen
explosions occurred at (at least) three
GE Mark I reactors using a pressure
suppression system.’’ The petitioner
also states, ‘‘There are 23 GE Mark I
nuclear reactors—about one-quarter of
the nation’s reactors—essentially
identical to the reactors that were
destroyed at Fukushima, that are
operational in the United States.’’ The
petitioner makes the following
statement: ‘‘Not only can the NRC no
longer dismiss such accidents in the
U.S., the NRC must instead assume that
such accidents can occur in the U.S. and
even, given the history of the nuclear
age that large nuclear accidents are
occurring at a much greater frequency
than previously postulated, the NRC—at
least for emergency planning purposes if
VerDate Mar<15>2010
nothing else—must assume that such
accidents will occur in the U.S.’’
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
[REG–119632–11]
RIN 1545–BK87
Regulations Pertaining to the
Disclosure of Return Information To
Carry Out Eligibility Requirements for
Health Insurance Affordability
Programs
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and notice of public hearing.
AGENCY:
This document contains
proposed regulations relating to the
disclosure of return information under
section 6103(l)(21) of the Internal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Revenue Code, as enacted by the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act and
the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010. The
regulations define certain terms and
prescribe certain items of return
information in addition to those items
prescribed by statute that will be
disclosed, upon written request, under
section 6103(l)(21) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
DATES: Written (including electronic)
comments must be received by July 30,
2012. Outlines of topics to be discussed
at the public hearing scheduled for
Friday, August 31, 2012, must be
received by July 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–119632–11), Room
5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box
7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,
DC 20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–119632–11),
Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC, or sent electronically
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–119632–
11). The public hearing will be held in
the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the proposed regulations,
Steven Karon, (202) 622–4570;
concerning the submission of
comments, the public hearing, and to be
placed on the building access list to
attend the public hearing,
Olumafunmilayo Taylor, (202) 622–
7180 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Beginning in 2014, under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act,
Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119
(2010)), and the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,
Public Law 111–152 (124 Stat. 1029
(2010)) (collectively, the Affordable Care
Act), Affordable Insurance Exchanges
(Exchanges) will provide competitive
marketplaces for individuals and small
employers to directly compare available
private health insurance options
(qualified health plans, or QHPs) on the
basis of price, quality, and other factors,
and to purchase such coverage. A
Federally-facilitated Exchange will
operate on behalf of States electing not
to pursue a State-based Exchange. In
general, a QHP is a health plan offered
by a health insurance issuer that meets
minimum standards in the law and set
by an Exchange.
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25375-25378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10314]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52
[PRM-50-104; NRC-2012-0046]
Emergency Planning Zone
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt and request for
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt for a petition for
rulemaking (PRM), dated February 15, 2012, which was filed with the NRC
by Mr. Michael Mariotte on behalf of the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service (NIRS or the petitioner) and 37 co-petitioners. The
petition was docketed by the NRC on February 17, 2012, and assigned
Docket No. PRM-50-104. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its
regulations to expand the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for nuclear
power plants.
DATES: Submit comments by July 16, 2012. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is
able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this petition for rulemaking, which the NRC possesses and is
publicly available, by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID NRC-2012-0046. You may submit comments by the following
methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0046. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
[[Page 25376]]
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-492-3667, email:
Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0046 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this petition for rulemaking.
You may access information related to this petition for rulemaking,
which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0046.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The PRM is available in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML12048B004.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0046 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such
information before making the comment submissions available to the
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. The Petitioner and the 37 Co-Petitioners
The PRM describes the petitioner and the 37 co-petitioners as
``environmental and civic organizations with members who live within
100 miles of U.S. nuclear power plants and who are concerned that
current NRC emergency planning requirements are not adequate to protect
their health and safety in the event of an accident at the plant.''
The NIRS is a non-profit organization founded in 1978, which serves
as a ``national information and networking center for people concerned
about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable
energy issues.'' In addition, the NIRS is described as an organization
that provides public education on issues such as deregulation of
radioactive materials, new reactor licensing, transportation of
radioactive waste, and nuclear reactor safety.
III. The Petition
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.47, ``Emergency Plans,'' and Appendix E
to 10 CFR Part 50, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production
and Utilization Facilities,'' and include the modifications in 10 CFR
Part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power
Plants.'' Specifically, the petitioner requests that (1) the Plume
Exposure Pathway EPZ radius be expanded from a 10-mile radius to a 25-
mile radius, (2) a new 50-mile radius Emergency Response Zone, with
more limited requirements than the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ, be
established, (3) the Ingestion Pathway EPZ radius be expanded from a
50-mile radius to a 100-mile radius, and (4) the ``emergency plans are
tested to encompass initiating and/or concurrent natural disasters that
may affect both accident progression and evacuation conduct.'' The
petitioner asserts that ``the requested amendments are essential for
the protection of public health and safety in light of the real-world
experience of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, which were more
severe and affected a much larger geographical area than provided for
in NRC regulations.''
The petitioner states that ``[t]he NRC should amend 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) to create a three-tiered emergency planning zone * * *.''
The petitioner's three-tiered EPZ includes a 25 mile Plume Exposure
Pathway EPZ, 50 mile Emergency Response Zone, and 100 mile Ingestion
Exposure Pathway Zone. The following paragraphs provide a summary of
the petitioner's proposed revisions to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2).
25 Mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ
The petitioner proposes the following revision to 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) with regards to the plume exposure pathway EPZ:
A Plume Exposure Pathway zone shall consist of an area about 25
miles (40 km) in radius. Within this zone, detailed plans must be
developed to provide prompt and effective evacuation and other
appropriate protective measures, including conducting of biannual
full-scale emergency evacuation drills. Sirens will be installed
within this zone to alert the population of the need for evacuation.
Transportation for elderly, prison and school populations shall be
provided within this zone. Emergency shelters shall be located
outside of the 25-mile zone.
The petitioner asserts that the expansion of the plume exposure
pathway EPZ from a 10 mile radius to a 25 mile radius ``would provide
no new requirements other than expansion of the EPZ.''
50 Mile Emergency Response Zone
The petitioner proposes the following revision to 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) with regards to an Emergency Response Zone:
The [emergency response zone] shall be about 50 miles in radius.
Within this 50 mile zone, the licensee must identify evacuation
routes for all residents within this zone and annually provide
information to all residents within this zone about these routes and
which they are supposed to take in the event of an emergency. The
licensee must make basic pre-arrangements for potential transport of
disabled/hospital/prison populations. Emergency centers for the
public currently located less than 25 miles out shall be relocated
to 25 miles or further out. Information shall be made available to
the public within this zone through television, internet and radio
alerts, text message notices, and other appropriate means of public
communication.
The petitioner notes that this revision ``would require measures be
carried out between the new 25 mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ and a
new Emergency Response Zone of about a 50 mile radius.'' The petitioner
states that the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ
[[Page 25377]]
emergency evacuation requirements and biannual exercises are not
required in the Emergency Response Zone. The petitioner further states
``this new zone would provide a modest level of pre-planning that would
enable rapid expansion of the 25 mile zone when necessary. Information
regarding evacuation such as identification of evacuation routes and
locations of emergency shelters in the event of a large scale disaster
would be identified and would be provided to members of the public
annually, and a limited number of other pre-arrangements would be
made.''
100 Mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway Zone
The petitioner proposes the following revision to 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) with regards to the ingestion pathway EPZ:
The ingestion pathway EPZ shall be about 100 miles in radius. In
the event of a radioactive release, the deposition of radionuclides
on crops, other vegetation, bodies of surface water and ground
surfaces can occur. Measures will be implemented to protect the
public from eating and drinking food and water that may be
contaminated. Information shall be made available to the public
within this zone through television and radio alerts, text message
notices, and other appropriate means of public communication.
The petitioner states that ``[t]he current Ingestion Exposure
Pathway Zone exists to protect food, water and anything intended for
human consumption within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.'' The
petitioner further states ``[g]iven that radiation can, and does, have
far-reaching effects on food on a large radius, the Ingestion Pathway
EPZ should be expanded.''
Drills and Exercises
The petitioner proposes amending 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) with regards
to drills and exercises by adding:
Within the emergency evacuation zone full scale drills and
exercises will be conducted on a biannual basis. Every other
exercise and drill shall include a scenario involving an initiating
or concurrent regionally-appropriate natural disaster.
IV. The Petitioner's Bases
The petitioner states, ``[w]ith the exception of a 2011 rule
requiring licensees to use current U.S. census data to prepare
evacuation time estimates (ETEs) and update them every 10 years, the
NRC has made few significant improvements to its offsite emergency
response regulations since they were promulgated in 1980.'' The
petitioner notes that ``the NRC denied a set of petitions [submitted by
the Citizens Task Force of Chapel Hill, et al.] to increase the size of
the plume exposure pathway EPZ and the ingestion pathway EPZ'' in 1990.
The petitioner asserts that ``[t]he Commission declined to revisit the
assumptions about severe reactor accident risks that underlie its
emergency planning regulations, concluding that the existing size of
the EPZs was adequate to achieve `reasonable and feasible dose
reduction' under the circumstances of each individual reactor site.''
The petitioner's bases for the petition are further presented in the
following paragraphs.
Chernobyl, September 11, and Fukushima Experiences
The petitioner cites reports and findings regarding the Chernobyl
and Fukushima Dai-ichi accidents, and the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks to support the petition. The petitioner asserts that ``[t]he
accident at Fukushima, added to the experience of the Chernobyl
disaster, demonstrates that the 10 mile plume exposure pathway EPZ and
the 50 mile ingestion pathway EPZ are inadequate to protect the public
health and safety, both because severe accidents are clearly more
likely than any government previously has estimated and because their
effects are far more widespread.'' The petitioner specifically cites
the ``Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century:
The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident'' (Fukushima Task Force Report, ADAMS Accession No.
ML111861807), dated July 12, 2011. The petitioner notes that the Task
Force formed to examine the Fukushima disaster ``addressed the issues
of protecting against accidents resulting from natural phenomena,
mitigating the consequences of such accidents, and ensuring emergency
preparedness'' in the Fukushima Task Force Report. The petitioner also
notes that the Task Force ``made several recommendations, including
strengthening and integrating onsite emergency response capabilities
such as emergency operating procedures, severe accident management
guidelines, and extensive damage mitigation guidelines.'' The
petitioner asserts that ``the task force failed to make any
recommendations on improving emergency response capabilities or
expanding EPZ size, despite the Task Force's acknowledgement that it
was necessary to evacuate Japanese residents up to and beyond a 20-
kilometer (12-mile) area around Fukushima.'' As the petitioner notes,
the NRC is evaluating several Task Force recommendations related to
emergency preparedness. More information about these activities is
available through the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/japan/japan-info.html.
Real-World Experience and Improved Understanding of Severe Accident
Risks at Nuclear Reactors
The petitioner states that ``[t]he NRC's existing emergency
planning regulations (and the NRC's decision in Citizens Task Force of
Chapel Hill) are based primarily on experience gained by the Three Mile
Island accident and on NRC reactor safety studies conducted from the
1950s through the 1970s (for example, WASH-1400 and NUREG-1150) and are
encapsulated in NUREG-0396.'' The petitioner notes that in 2006, ``the
NRC began the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA)
project to re-evaluate the `realistic consequences of a severe reactor
accident.' '' The petitioner cites an October 2010 draft of the SOARCA
report to support the petition. The petitioner asserts that ``real-
world experience at Fukushima trumps the computer modeling of SOARCA in
any case and has presented the world--and the NRC--with an actual
accident that exceeds postulated scenarios.'' The petitioner continues
by stating ``[c]omputer models, simulations, evaluations of projected
scenarios--all can be useful tools in evaluating the relative risks of
complex systems like nuclear reactors. They can even be useful--in the
absence of real-world information--in establishing regulations. But
they exist primarily to generate postulated data in the absence of
actual data--they are not a substitute for actual, real-world
experience.''
Real-World Experience and Improved Understanding of Severe Accident
Risks at [Spent] Fuel Pools
The petitioner states that ``[spent] fuel pools pose a serious and
dangerous threat to the populations surrounding nuclear plants.
Accidents could cause widespread contamination of highly radioactive
materials.'' The petitioner asserts that ``[r]adiation exposure would
be significantly worse if there were to be [a spent] fuel pool accident
in addition to a reactor accident.'' The petitioner makes the following
statement regarding spent fuel pools: ``In theory, this form of storage
is meant to be temporary. But, because offsite storage of irradiated
fuel is currently unavailable, high density storage of this material
has been permitted to occur.'' The petitioner also states, ``Aside from
concerns associated with the dense packing of a pool, the pools
themselves are located outside of
[[Page 25378]]
the primary containment which is designed to keep radiation which is
released during an emergency event from escaping in to the environment.
Because they are outside of the primary containment structure, they are
more vulnerable than the core to natural disasters and terrorist
attacks.''
Improved Understanding of Health Effects of Radiation
The petitioner states ``[t]here is no `safe' dose of radiation, and
as such the consideration of the effects of release of radiation should
be given greater consideration.'' The petitioner cites the 2006
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Report and asserts
the report confirms that ``any exposure to radiation--including
background radiation--increases a person's risk of developing cancer.''
The petitioner states that ``the NRC and licensees must recognize that
their emergency response programs must be designed to protect not only
against radiation levels that would cause acute effects, but also
radiation levels that would exceed annual exposure limits * * *.'' The
petitioner asserts that ``a government policy that implicitly states,
as do NRC's existing emergency planning regulations, that radiation
exposure levels higher than normally allowable--by orders of
magnitude--are acceptable under emergency conditions, is a government
policy that is unsupportable and without basis in reality.''
Particular Problems Associated With Pressure Suppression Containments
The petitioner asserts that ``[t]he failure of a pressure
suppression containment can result in widespread radioactive
contamination of areas surrounding nuclear plants.'' The petitioner
states, ``In Japan, hydrogen explosions occurred at (at least) three GE
Mark I reactors using a pressure suppression system.'' The petitioner
also states, ``There are 23 GE Mark I nuclear reactors--about one-
quarter of the nation's reactors--essentially identical to the reactors
that were destroyed at Fukushima, that are operational in the United
States.'' The petitioner makes the following statement: ``Not only can
the NRC no longer dismiss such accidents in the U.S., the NRC must
instead assume that such accidents can occur in the U.S. and even,
given the history of the nuclear age that large nuclear accidents are
occurring at a much greater frequency than previously postulated, the
NRC--at least for emergency planning purposes if nothing else--must
assume that such accidents will occur in the U.S.''
Natural Disasters and Emergency Response Planning
The petitioner states that ``[n]atural disasters have become
increasingly prevalent in recent years causing concerns for nuclear
reactors that are susceptible to various weather phenomena and
disasters.'' The petitioner asserts that ``[c]urrent NRC emergency
planning regulations do not reflect that natural disasters can both
cause nuclear accidents and/or may occur concurrently with nuclear
accidents.'' The petitioner requests the following:
Emergency response planning for nuclear facilities must
incorporate regionally-relevant initiating and concurrent natural
disasters as a regular part of emergency exercises, to assure the
most effective possible emergency response in the event of a nuclear
accident triggered by or complicated by a natural disaster. For this
reason, we propose that every other emergency exercise include a
scenario that includes a regionally-relevant initiating and
concurrent natural disaster. By ``regionally relevant'' we mean that
plans should be made and exercises undertaken for the type of
natural disaster most likely to affect a given licensee site * * *.
However, for areas that may be affected by more than one type of
natural disaster * * * each exercise should include a different
regionally relevant scenario.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of April 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-10314 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
