Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 74 › 74 FR 23254

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 RIN 3150-AI10 [NRC-2008-0122] Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is proposing to amend certain emergency preparedness (EP) requirements in its regulations that govern domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities. A conforming provision would also be added in the regulations that govern licenses, certifications, and approvals for new nuclear power plants. The proposed amendments would codify certain voluntary protective measures contained in NRC Bulletin 2005-02, “Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,” and other generically applicable requirements similar to those previously imposed by Commission orders. They would also amend other licensee emergency plan requirements based on a comprehensive review of the NRC's EP regulations and guidance. The proposed requirements would enhance the ability of licensees in preparing to take and taking certain emergency preparedness and protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency; address, in part, security issues identified after the terrorist events of September 11, 2001; clarify regulations to effect consistent emergency plan implementation among licensees; and modify certain EP requirements to be more effective and efficient.

DATES:

Submit comments on the proposed rule by August 3, 2009. Submit comments on the information collection aspects of this proposed rule by June 17, 2009. Comments received after the above dates will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after these dates.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection

on aspects of this proposed rule by June 17, 2009. Comments received after the above dates will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after these dates.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed.

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID [NRC-2008-0122]. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone (301) 492-3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1677.

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 492-3446.

You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:

NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public File Area O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

th, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into 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 NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lauren Quiñones, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-2007, e-mail Lauren.Quinones@nrc.gov; or Don Tailleart, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-2966, e-mail Don.Tailleart@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background II. Discussion III. Public and Stakeholder Input to the Proposed Rule IV. Specific Request for Comments V. Section-by-Section Analysis VI. Guidance VII. Criminal Penalties VIII. Agreement State Compatibility IX. Availability of Documents X. Plain Language XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement XIV. Regulatory Analysis: Availability XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XVI. Backfit Analysis I. Background

After the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC determined that it was necessary to require certain modifications of EP programs for operating power reactor licensees to ensure continued adequate protection of public health and safety. These modifications were issued to licensees by NRC Order EA-02-026, “Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures,” (Order EA-02-026), dated February 25, 2002

ts of September 11, 2001, the NRC determined that it was necessary to require certain modifications of EP programs for operating power reactor licensees to ensure continued adequate protection of public health and safety. These modifications were issued to licensees by NRC Order EA-02-026, “Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures,” (Order EA-02-026), dated February 25, 2002. Order EA-02-026 was issued to the license holders of the 104 commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States. This order required licensees to implement interim compensatory measures (ICMs) for the post-September 11, 2001, threat environment and take actions such as:

(1) Review security and emergency plans to maximize compatibility between the plans;

(2) Assess the adequacy of staffing plans at emergency response facilities, and for licensees with an onsite emergency operations facility (EOF), identify alternative facilities capable of supporting emergency response;

(3) Develop plans, procedures and training regarding notification (including non-emergency response organization (ERO) employees), activation, and coordination between the site and offsite response organizations (OROs);

(4) Conduct a review of staffing to ensure that collateral duties are not assigned to responders that would prevent effective emergency response; and

(5) Implement site-specific emergency action levels (EALs) to provide an anticipatory response to a credible threat.

Following the issuance of Order EA-02-026, the NRC conducted inspections of licensee EP programs and held meetings with nuclear power industry representatives to discuss the inspection results and the modifications licensees had made to their EP programs. Also following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC evaluated the EP planning basis for nuclear power reactors given the changed threat environment

ance of Order EA-02-026, the NRC conducted inspections of licensee EP programs and held meetings with nuclear power industry representatives to discuss the inspection results and the modifications licensees had made to their EP programs. Also following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC evaluated the EP planning basis for nuclear power reactors given the changed threat environment. In SECY-03-0165, “Evaluation of Nuclear Power Reactor Emergency Preparedness Planning Basis

On December 14, 2004, the NRC staff briefed the Commission on EP program initiatives. During the briefing, the NRC staff informed the Commission of its intent to conduct a comprehensive review of EP regulations and guidance. On February 25, 2005, in response to the Commission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM), SRM-M041214B, “Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Program Initiatives, 1 p.m., Tuesday, December 14, 2004, Commissioners' Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland (Open to Public Attendance),” dated December 20, 2004, the NRC staff provided the Commission with a schedule of activities for the completion of the comprehensive review. The NRC staff, through SECY-05-0010, “Recommended Enhancements of Emergency Preparedness and Response at Nuclear Power Plants in Post-9/11 Environment,” issued on January 10, 2005 (not publicly available), requested Commission approval of the NRC staff's recommendations for enhancing, through new guidance documents, EP in the post-September 11, 2001, threat environment. In its SRM to SECY-05-0010, dated May 4, 2005 (not publicly available), the Commission directed the staff to provide the results of a comprehensive review of EP regulations and guidance. The SRM to SECY-05-0010 also approved the staff's recommendation to proceed with enhancements to EP issues as described in SECY-05-0010

ew guidance documents, EP in the post-September 11, 2001, threat environment. In its SRM to SECY-05-0010, dated May 4, 2005 (not publicly available), the Commission directed the staff to provide the results of a comprehensive review of EP regulations and guidance. The SRM to SECY-05-0010 also approved the staff's recommendation to proceed with enhancements to EP issues as described in SECY-05-0010. As a result, the NRC staff issued Bulletin 2005-02 (BL-05-02), “Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,” dated July 18, 2005, which recommended enhancements that licensees could integrate into EP programs at power reactors. BL-05-02 also sought to obtain information from licensees on their actions taken to implement Order EA-02-026 and to modify their EP programs to adjust to the current threat environment. Based on the results of the post BL-05-02 inspections, meetings with members of the nuclear power industry, and licensees' responses to BL-05-02, the NRC determined that licensees were implementing strategies to satisfy Order EA-02-026 and enhance their programs to address the changed threat environment.

As directed by the Commission SRMs discussed above, the NRC staff conducted a comprehensive review of the EP regulatory structure, including reviews of regulations and guidance documents. As part of this review, the NRC staff met with internal and external stakeholders through several public meetings in 2005 and 2006 to discuss the elements of the EP review and plans to update EP regulations and guidance. Section III of this document provides a list of the public and other stakeholder meetings.

c and other stakeholder meetings.

On September 20, 2006, the NRC staff provided the results of its review to the Commission in SECY-06-0200, “Results of the Review of Emergency Preparedness Regulations and Guidance”. In that paper, the NRC staff discussed the activities it had conducted to complete the review and provided its recommendation to pursue rulemaking for enhancements to the EP program. The NRC staff explained that the comprehensive review of the EP program identified several areas where the implementation of EP regulations and guidance, recent technological advances, and lessons learned from actual events, drills, and exercises had revealed to the NRC areas for potential improvement and increased clarity for the EP program. The staff divided the potential enhancements into two categories: hostile action-based EP issues and other EP issues. The NRC staff evaluated each issue and assigned it a priority of high, medium, or low based on an analysis of the issue's relationship to reactor safety, physical security, EP, NRC strategic goals of openness and effectiveness, and stakeholder impact.

The NRC staff's outreach efforts, data gathering, research, and analysis led to the identification of 12 issues with a high priority, including six security EP issues and six non-security EP issues. In SECY-06-0200, the staff presented a framework for the potential enhancements to the EP regulations and guidance to address these issues, including steps for implementation, prioritization, and resource estimates. Based on its review, the NRC staff recommended that the Commission approve rulemaking as the most effective and efficient means to ensure that the high priority EP issues were resolved with an opportunity for participation by all interested stakeholders.

In its SRM to SECY-06-0200, dated January 8, 2007, the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to pursue rulemaking and guidance changes for enhancements to the EP program

mmended that the Commission approve rulemaking as the most effective and efficient means to ensure that the high priority EP issues were resolved with an opportunity for participation by all interested stakeholders.

In its SRM to SECY-06-0200, dated January 8, 2007, the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to pursue rulemaking and guidance changes for enhancements to the EP program. On April 17, 2007, the staff provided its rulemaking plan to the Commission via a memorandum. During the development of the plan, the NRC staff assessed the issues identified in SECY-06-0200 and discussed the feasibility of conducting rulemaking and updating guidance on all issues. The staff determined that the best course of action was to conduct rulemaking on the 12 issues identified in SECY-06-0200 as having a high priority, and to reassess the remaining issues at a later date. The decision to conduct rulemaking on the highest priority issues would allow a more timely rulemaking effort to occur and would enable the staff to more completely assess the remaining lower priority issues. Due to the similarities between two issues known in the rulemaking plan as “collateral duties” and “shift staffing and augmentation,” these issues have been partially combined in this proposed rule. The NRC is considering non-rulemaking options for some of the elements of shift staffing and is also requesting stakeholder comments in Section V of this document. Additionally, the Commission directed the NRC staff in SRM-M060502, “Staff Requirements—Briefing on Status of Emergency Planning Activities, (Two sessions) 9:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., Tuesday, May 2, 2006, Commissioners' Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland (Open to public attendance),” dated June 29, 2006, to coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop emergency planning exercise scenarios that would ensure that EP drills and exercises were challenging and did not precondition participant responses

sessions) 9:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., Tuesday, May 2, 2006, Commissioners' Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland (Open to public attendance),” dated June 29, 2006, to coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop emergency planning exercise scenarios that would ensure that EP drills and exercises were challenging and did not precondition participant responses. This direction was incorporated into the rulemaking issue regarding the conduct of hostile action drills and exercises because it was so closely related.

In an effort to conduct a rulemaking that is transparent and open to stakeholder participation, the NRC engaged stakeholders through various means during the development of this proposed rule. The NRC discussed the proposed improvements to the EP regulations and guidance at several conferences with key stakeholders present including the 2007 Regulatory Information Conference and the 2008 National Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference. These

The NRC posted draft rule language on the e-rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, on February 29, 2008, and solicited stakeholder comments. The NRC considered the comments received on the draft rule language in the process of developing the proposed rule. This is discussed further in Section IV of this document. The NRC continued the use of public meetings as a method to foster open communication with stakeholders when it held public meetings on March 5, 2008, and on July 8, 2008. At the March 5, 2008 meeting, the NRC staff discussed the draft preliminary rule language for the rulemaking on enhancements to emergency preparedness regulations and guidance and answered stakeholders' questions on the rule language. At the July 8, 2008 meeting, the NRC staff discussed the public comments on the draft preliminary rule language and answered stakeholders' questions on how these comments may be addressed in the proposed rule.

ssed the draft preliminary rule language for the rulemaking on enhancements to emergency preparedness regulations and guidance and answered stakeholders' questions on the rule language. At the July 8, 2008 meeting, the NRC staff discussed the public comments on the draft preliminary rule language and answered stakeholders' questions on how these comments may be addressed in the proposed rule.

II. Discussion

The proposed amendments would require 10 CFR Part 50 licensees that are currently subject to the EP requirements, and applicants for operating licenses under Part 50 or combined licenses under Part 52 that would be subject to the proposed EP requirements to ensure that their EP programs meet the amended EP requirements. The proposed amendments would similarly apply to applicants for construction permits under Part 50 with respect to their discussion of preliminary plans for coping with emergencies (§ 50.34(a)(10)), and to applicants for early site permits under Part 52 that choose to propose either major features of an, or a complete and integrated, emergency plan (§ 52.17(b)(2)).

The 16 planning standards in § 50.47(b) apply to both onsite and offsite plans because, in making its licensing decision, the NRC looks at the application (or the licensee's activities in the case of existing facilities), the current State and local government emergency plans, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) recommendation, which is based on the content of the State and local plans. FEMA's regulations in 44 CFR Part 350 also contain these 16 planning standards, which are used to make its recommendation on the adequacy of the plans and capability of the State and local governments to implement them; however, FEMA's regulations address only offsite (State and local government) plans. The changes that are proposed by the NRC in this rulemaking are designed to affect the onsite plans, not the offsite plans

R Part 350 also contain these 16 planning standards, which are used to make its recommendation on the adequacy of the plans and capability of the State and local governments to implement them; however, FEMA's regulations address only offsite (State and local government) plans. The changes that are proposed by the NRC in this rulemaking are designed to affect the onsite plans, not the offsite plans. The proposed changes have been written in a way that is expected to limit the chance of unintended impacts on FEMA regulations.

An effective EP program decreases the likelihood of an initiating event at a nuclear power reactor proceeding to a severe accident. EP cannot affect the probability of the initiating event, but a high level of EP increases the probability of accident mitigation if the initiating event proceeds beyond the need for initial operator actions. As a defense-in-depth measure, emergency response is not normally quantified in probabilistic risk assessments. However, the level of EP does affect the outcome of an accident in that the accident may be mitigated by the actions of the ERO or in the worst case, consequences to the public are reduced through the effective use of protective actions. Enhancements to the level of EP in this manner enhance protection of public health and safety through improvements in the response to unlikely initiating events that could lead to severe accidents without mitigative response.

The discussion of the proposed amendments is divided into two sections: Section II.A for security-related EP issues and Section II.B for non-security-related EP issues. The security-related issues are topics that address subjects similar to certain requirements in Order EA-02-026 and the guidance in BL-05-02. The non-security related issues are high priority items that resulted from the comprehensive review of EP regulations and guidance.

A. Security-Related Issues

The NRC is proposing amendments to enhance its EP regulations by clearly addressing EP actions for a hostile action event

s are topics that address subjects similar to certain requirements in Order EA-02-026 and the guidance in BL-05-02. The non-security related issues are high priority items that resulted from the comprehensive review of EP regulations and guidance.

A. Security-Related Issues

The NRC is proposing amendments to enhance its EP regulations by clearly addressing EP actions for a hostile action event. Some of these proposed changes are based on requirements in Order EA-02-026 that was issued to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security. After the issuance of Order EA-02-026, however, the Commission took several additional steps to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security, including the issuance of Order EA-02-261, “Access Authorization Order,” issued January 7, 2003 (January 13, 2003; 68 FR 1643); Order EA-03-039, “Security Personnel Training and Qualification Requirements (Training) Order,” issued April 29, 2003 (May 7, 2003; 68 FR 24514); Order EA-03-086, “Revised Design Basis Threat Order,” issued April 29, 2003 (May 7, 2003; 68 FR 24517); the Design Basis Threat (DBT) final rule (March 19, 2007; 72 FR 12705); and the Power Reactor Security Requirements final rule (March 27, 2009; 74 FR 13926). As a result of these adequate protection requirements, the Commission has determined that the proposed EP changes that are based on the requirements of Order EA-02-026 would no longer be necessary to ensure adequate protection during a hostile action event. Therefore, because the existing regulatory structure ensures adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security, the NRC has determined that, in the current threat environment, the following proposed amendments would not be necessary to ensure adequate protection during a hostile action event. These amendments are considered enhancements to the current EP regulations

erefore, because the existing regulatory structure ensures adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security, the NRC has determined that, in the current threat environment, the following proposed amendments would not be necessary to ensure adequate protection during a hostile action event. These amendments are considered enhancements to the current EP regulations. However, these enhancements would result in a substantial increase in emergency preparedness and the protection of public health and safety.

1. On-Shift Multiple Responsibilities

The NRC is concerned that on-shift ERO personnel who are assigned to emergency plan implementation functions may have multiple responsibilities that would prevent timely performance of their assigned emergency plan tasks. The requirements for on-shift responsibilities are addressed in § 50.47(b)(2) and Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A. Currently, these regulations do not specifically require that on-shift personnel assigned to emergency plan implementation must be able to implement the plan effectively without having competing responsibilities that could prevent them from performing their primary emergency plan tasks. NRC regulations and guidance concerning licensee EROs are general in nature to allow some flexibility in the number of on-shift staff required for response to emergency events. This sometimes has resulted in the inadequate completion of emergency functions required during an emergency event. The NRC issued Information Notice (IN) 91-77, “Shift Staffing at Nuclear Power Plants,” dated November 26, 1991, to alert licensees to problems that could arise from insufficient on-shift staff for emergency response. The IN highlighted the following two events:

• A fire at one plant in April 1991 resulted in the licensee's failure to notify some key emergency response personnel (communication function)

issued Information Notice (IN) 91-77, “Shift Staffing at Nuclear Power Plants,” dated November 26, 1991, to alert licensees to problems that could arise from insufficient on-shift staff for emergency response. The IN highlighted the following two events:

• A fire at one plant in April 1991 resulted in the licensee's failure to notify some key emergency response personnel (communication function). The need to staff the fire brigade and perform numerous response actions

• A fire, loss of offsite power, and reactor trip at another plant in June 1991 resulted in difficulties in classifying the event, notifying required personnel, implementing emergency operating procedures, and staffing the fire brigade. Insufficient staff contributed to the licensee's failure to make a timely Notification of Unusual Event.

The NRC issued IN 93-81, “Implementation of Engineering Expertise On-Shift,” dated October 12, 1993, to alert licensees of ineffective implementation of the requirement to provide adequate engineering expertise on shift. Each nuclear power plant is required to have a shift technical advisor (STA) on shift to provide engineering and accident assessment expertise. However, some licensees had assigned additional response duties to STAs, such as communicator or fire brigade member, which could result in overburdening the control room staff during an emergency event. One licensee had assigned the STA as fire brigade leader which could hinder the STA from performing the primary duty of providing accident assessment and engineering expertise.

ad assigned the STA as fire brigade leader which could hinder the STA from performing the primary duty of providing accident assessment and engineering expertise.

After issuance of IN 91-77, event follow-up inspections indicated that challenges involving shift staffing and task allocation continued. The NRC initiated a study in 1995 to assess the adequacy of shift staffing for emergency response. The NRC published IN 95-48, “Results of Shift Staffing Study,” dated October 10, 1995, which cited several observations of inadequate staffing and also concluded that there could be a large workload for radiological support personnel during emergencies. Data was collected on the adequacy of nuclear power plant staffing practices for performing response activities during two accident scenarios, which were (1) a fire leading to reactor trip with complications, and (2) either a control room fire leading to evacuation and remote shutdown or a station blackout. Items of interest included the following:

• Licensees surveyed did not use a systematic process for establishing site-specific shift staffing levels.

• Licensees surveyed frequently assigned additional plant-specific tasks that were not specified by regulation to be performed by licensed and non-licensed operators during an event.

• Five of the seven licensees surveyed used licensed personnel to staff the fire brigade.

• Procedures varied significantly concerning licensed and non-licensed personnel staffing levels, and the number of non-licensed operators used on the night-shift varied greatly.

• Radiation protection and chemistry technicians of all the licensees surveyed had a high workload during the scenarios.

the licensees surveyed had a high workload during the scenarios.

Multiple NRC inspection findings also indicate the need for regulatory clarity in the assignment of multiple responsibilities to on-shift ERO personnel. For example, in February 2003, one licensee revised its emergency plan to delete one of three communicators and assigned the communicator function to the STA as an additional duty. As previously stated, the primary emergency plan duty of the STA is to provide engineering and accident assessment expertise. The NRC determined that this emergency plan change was an inappropriate reduction in on-shift staff and assessed the change as a decrease in effectiveness of the emergency plan in violation of § 50.54(q). In April 2005, another licensee revised its emergency plan to allow the assignment of the on-shift health physics technician (HP Tech) as the interim operations support center coordinator, a 30-minute augmented ERO responder. The HP Tech had assigned emergency plan tasks including in-plant surveys, in-plant protective actions, and rescue/first aid. The NRC determined that this emergency plan change was an inappropriate assignment of augmentation staff duties to an on-shift responder and assessed the change as a decrease in effectiveness of the emergency plan in violation of § 50.54(q).

These findings demonstrated the need for amended regulations to explicitly limit on-shift ERO response duties to ensure that these emergency responders do not become overburdened during an emergency event. Assigning additional duties, such as fire brigade member could result in on-shift responders being overburdened, resulting in inadequate or untimely response.

gency event. Assigning additional duties, such as fire brigade member could result in on-shift responders being overburdened, resulting in inadequate or untimely response.

The ICMs in Order EA-02-026 addressed on-shift staff responsibilities by requiring licensees to ensure that a sufficient number of on-shift personnel are available for integrated security plan and emergency plan implementation. Prior to issuance of the order, some licensees were utilizing security personnel to implement the emergency plan when many of these responders would likely not be available due to a hostile action.

The NRC considered several options to resolve this issue. One option was to take no action, but this alternative would not subject new nuclear power reactor licensees to Order EA-02-026's requirement of an assessment to ensure adequate staff for integrated security plan and emergency plan implementation. Additionally, the shift staffing study referenced in IN 95-48 found that the licensees surveyed did not use a systematic process for establishing shift staffing levels and additional tasks, not required by regulation, were assigned to the licensed and non-licensed operators. This practice could result in operators being overburdened during an emergency. A second option was to allow licensees to use a voluntary program to ensure adequate shift staffing. However, many licensees have requested NRC permission to reduce on-shift staffing levels and the NRC expects this practice to continue. This could increase the risk of over-burdening on-shift responders and result in inadequate or untimely response. Therefore, both of these options were considered unacceptable. Instead, the NRC is proposing to revise Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A. to address this issue, as discussed in Section V of this document.

2. Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action Events

Section 50.47(b)(4) currently stipulates that emergency plans must include a standard emergency classification and action level scheme

se. Therefore, both of these options were considered unacceptable. Instead, the NRC is proposing to revise Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A. to address this issue, as discussed in Section V of this document.

2. Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action Events

Section 50.47(b)(4) currently stipulates that emergency plans must include a standard emergency classification and action level scheme. Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.B., currently specifies that emergency plans shall include EALs that are to be used as criteria for determining the need for notification of State and local agencies, and participation of those agencies in emergency response. However, NRC regulations do not require EALs for hostile action events and do not address the issue of anticipatory response to hostile action events. Although Order EA-02-026 and BL-05-02 addressed these issues, those improvements to the EAL requirements to address hostile action events are only in orders and guidance. Thus, the NRC cannot ensure consistent and effective implementation of these enhancements among existing and future licensees.

Order EA-02-026 required the declaration of at least an Unusual Event in response to a credible hostile action threat. In 2005, the NRC issued BL-05-02, which provided EAL enhancement examples for hostile action events up to the General Emergency level. BL-05-02 provided examples of EALs for all three EAL methodologies that could be implemented immediately without prior NRC approval (i.e., NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear

l Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear

Although all licensees have implemented both the credible threat EAL required by Order EA-02-026 and the EAL enhancements specified in BL-05-02, there is no requirement to maintain the enhancements identified in the bulletin. This could result in inconsistent EAL implementation among licensees for response to hostile action events. Also, future licensees would not be required to include these enhancements in their emergency plans. This rulemaking would serve to establish consistent EALs across the nuclear power industry for hostile action events. The ICMs and BL-05-02 provided enhancements to EAL schemes which would allow event declarations to be accomplished in a more anticipatory manner. This is of the utmost importance because EALs are used as criteria for determining the need for notification and participation of State and local agencies. The NRC believes that these enhancements to the EAL requirements addressing hostile action events should be codified by revising Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.B., as discussed in Section V of this document.

The NRC considered other options to attempt to resolve these issues, such as taking no action or allowing voluntary action by licensees. These options were rejected since there would continue to be no regulatory requirement for current or future licensees to incorporate EALs for hostile action events in their emergency plans, nor would there be a consistent minimum level of implementation that the NRC had determined to be adequate.

3. Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Augmentation and Alternative Facilities

t minimum level of implementation that the NRC had determined to be adequate.

3. Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Augmentation and Alternative Facilities

Currently, § 50.47(b)(8) and Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E. require licensees to have the capability to augment the on-shift staff within a short period of time after the declaration of an emergency to assist in mitigation activities. To accomplish this, ERO members typically staff an onsite Technical Support Center (TSC) which relieves the Control Room (CR) of emergency response duties and allows CR staff to focus on reactor safety. ERO members also staff an onsite Operational Support Center (OSC) to provide an assembly area for damage repair teams. Lastly, ERO members staff an EOF, usually located in close proximity to the plant, to function as the center for evaluation and coordination activities related to the emergency and the focal point of information provided to Federal, State, and local authorities involved in the response.

However, the regulations at § 50.47(b)(8) and Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E. do not require licensees to identify alternative facilities to support ERO augmentation during hostile action events. During a hostile action event, ERO members would likely not have access to the onsite emergency response facilities, or the EOF if it is located within the licensee's owner-controlled area. Nevertheless these events still warrant timely ERO augmentation so responders can travel quickly to the site.

Order EA-02-026 required that licensees assess the adequacy of staffing plans at emergency response facilities during a hostile action event, assuming the unavailability of the onsite TSC, and identify alternative facilities capable of supporting event response. These facilities would function as staging areas for augmentation staff until the site was secured, which would minimize delays in overall site response by permitting ERO assembly without exposing responders to the danger of hostile action

cilities during a hostile action event, assuming the unavailability of the onsite TSC, and identify alternative facilities capable of supporting event response. These facilities would function as staging areas for augmentation staff until the site was secured, which would minimize delays in overall site response by permitting ERO assembly without exposing responders to the danger of hostile action. NRC inspections to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the ICMs revealed variations in the identification and staffing of alternative emergency response facilities.

BL-05-02 described how alternative locations for onsite emergency response facilities support EP functions during a hostile action event. It stated that the ERO is expected to be staged in a manner that supports rapid response to limit or mitigate site damage or the potential for an offsite radiological release. It also pointed out that some licensees have chosen not to activate elements of the ERO during a hostile action event until the site was secured. However, the NRC considers it prudent to fully activate ERO members for off-normal working hour hostile action events to promptly staff alternative facilities, in order to minimize delays in overall site response. Even during normal working hours, licensees should consider deployment of onsite ERO personnel to an alternative facility near the site during a hostile action event.

To resolve this issue, the NRC considered taking no regulatory action or continuing the voluntary implementation currently in place as a result of BL-05-02 and the guidance endorsed by NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2006-12, “Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance ‘Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action,’ ” dated July 19, 2006. If no action were taken, there would continue to be no explicit regulatory requirement regarding the actions necessary during hostile action events for the ERO to staff an alternative facility

guidance endorsed by NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2006-12, “Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance ‘Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action,’ ” dated July 19, 2006. If no action were taken, there would continue to be no explicit regulatory requirement regarding the actions necessary during hostile action events for the ERO to staff an alternative facility. ERO members would likely not have access to the site during a hostile action event, but timely augmentation would still be necessary for adequate response. Taking no regulatory action may result in inconsistent implementation of ERO augmentation guidelines, and less effective overall site response. The NRC also considered using a voluntary program; however, voluntary programs, such as those developed per the NEI guidance endorsed by RIS 2006-12, do not provide a consistent, NRC-approved means for addressing needed enhancements for hostile action events. The use of voluntary programs does not ensure long-term continuity of the enhancements for both licensees and applicants. Thus, the NRC believes that the ICM requirement and the enhancement examples described in BL-05-02 concerning ERO augmentation to alternative facilities during hostile action events should be codified in Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E. to maximize the effectiveness of the site response. These proposed changes are discussed in Section V of this document.

4. Licensee Coordination With Offsite Response Organizations During Hostile Action Events

s are discussed in Section V of this document.

4. Licensee Coordination With Offsite Response Organizations During Hostile Action Events

The NRC believes that a unique challenge posed by a hostile action event at a nuclear power plant is the increased demand on local law enforcement agencies (LLEAs) that are expected to implement portions of ORO emergency plans, as well as respond to the plant. Currently, § 50.47(b)(1) and Appendix E to Part 50 do not explicitly require licensees to coordinate with OROs to ensure that personnel are available to carry out preplanned actions, such as traffic control and route alerting by LLEAs, during a hostile action event directed at the plant.

Licensees are required to identify ORO support for emergency response as well as demonstrate that various ORO

The NRC subsequently became aware through inspections and communications with licensees that ORO plans must be reviewed to ensure sufficient numbers of personnel would be available to respond during a hostile action event. The NRC communicated this need to licensees and OROs through RIS 2004-15, “Emergency Preparedness Issues: Post-9/11,” dated October 18, 2004, which provided information on EP issues based on NRC staff observations from the EP component of force-on-force (FOF) exercises and lessons learned from the telephonic walk-through drills conducted with all power reactor sites between August and October 2005. In addition, DHS initiated the Comprehensive Review Program that conducted a review of site and ORO response to hostile action at every nuclear plant site. This review often identified a gap in ORO resource planning. Based on these findings and lessons learned from hostile action pilot program drills (see Section II.A.6 of this document), the NRC believes there is inconsistent implementation among licensees concerning effective coordination with OROs to ensure that adequate resources are available to respond to a hostile action event at a nuclear power plant

iew often identified a gap in ORO resource planning. Based on these findings and lessons learned from hostile action pilot program drills (see Section II.A.6 of this document), the NRC believes there is inconsistent implementation among licensees concerning effective coordination with OROs to ensure that adequate resources are available to respond to a hostile action event at a nuclear power plant.

Licensees and the supporting OROs have taken various actions to respond to this issue, but criteria for determining the adequacy of the licensee and ORO actions have not been established. The NRC considered encouraging industry to develop and implement a voluntary program; however, voluntary programs do not provide a consistent, NRC-approved means for addressing the needed enhancements in the post-September 11, 2001, threat environment. The NRC believes that a voluntary approach would not ensure consistent industry-wide implementation of the ICM requirements and there would be no requirement for new licensees to incorporate the changes into their emergency plans.

The NRC is proposing to revise Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A.7. to require licensees to ensure that ORO personnel assigned emergency plan implementation duties would be available to do so during hostile action events. These proposed changes are discussed in Section V of this document.

5. Protection for Onsite Personnel

NRC regulations at § 50.47(b)(10) and Appendix E to Part 50 do not currently require specific emergency plan provisions to protect onsite emergency responders, and other onsite personnel, in emergencies resulting from hostile action events at nuclear power plants. Licensees are required to provide radiological protection for emergency workers and the public in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ), including actions such as warning of an emergency, providing for evacuation and accountability of individuals, and providing for protective clothing and/or radio-protective drugs

ies resulting from hostile action events at nuclear power plants. Licensees are required to provide radiological protection for emergency workers and the public in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ), including actions such as warning of an emergency, providing for evacuation and accountability of individuals, and providing for protective clothing and/or radio-protective drugs. Many of these personnel are required by the site emergency plan that the licensee must follow and maintain. The emergency plan requires responders with specific assignments to be available on-shift 24 hours a day to minimize the impact of radiological emergencies and provide for the protection of public health and safety. However, in analyses performed after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC staff determined that a lack of protection for emergency responders who are expected to implement the emergency plan could result in the loss of those responders and thus an inability to effectively implement the emergency plan.

The normal response actions for personnel protection, such as site evacuation, site assembly and accountability, and activation of onsite emergency response facilities, may not be appropriate in this instance because these actions may place at risk the response personnel necessary to mitigate plant damage resulting from the hostile action. BL-05-02 pointed out that actions different than those normally prescribed may be more appropriate during a hostile action, particularly an aircraft attack. This may include actions such as evacuation of personnel from potential target buildings and accountability of personnel after the attack has concluded. Precise actions would depend on site-specific arrangements, such as the location of personnel in relation to potential targets. Procedures would need to be revised to ensure plant page announcements are timely and convey the onsite protective measures deemed appropriate.

The NRC considered other options to attempt to resolve this issue

accountability of personnel after the attack has concluded. Precise actions would depend on site-specific arrangements, such as the location of personnel in relation to potential targets. Procedures would need to be revised to ensure plant page announcements are timely and convey the onsite protective measures deemed appropriate.

The NRC considered other options to attempt to resolve this issue. The NRC considered taking no additional regulatory action and relying upon continuation of the voluntary initiatives currently being implemented by licensees as a result of BL-05-02. The NRC believes that taking no action could result in the vulnerability of onsite personnel during a hostile action event. Action is necessary to ensure effective coordination to enable licensees to more effectively implement their pre-planned actions. Voluntary programs do not provide a consistent, NRC-approved means for addressing needed enhancements. Further, the implementation of voluntary actions does not ensure that these measures would be incorporated into emergency plans at new sites.

The NRC is proposing to revise Appendix E by creating a new Section IV.I. to address this issue, as discussed in Section V of this document.

6. Challenging Drills and Exercises

A basic EP principle is that licensees conduct drills and exercises to develop and maintain key skills of ERO personnel. Drill and exercise programs contribute to the NRC determination of reasonable assurance that licensees can and will implement actions to protect public health and safety in the unlikely event of a radiological emergency. Implementation of the current regulations provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety at every nuclear plant site.

ions provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety at every nuclear plant site.

In the unlikely event that a licensee faces a hostile action event, the response organization will encounter challenges that differ significantly from those practiced in long-standing drill and exercise programs because these programs have not included hostile action event scenarios. The NRC regulations addressing this issue are general in nature and do not explicitly require licensees to include hostile action event scenarios in drills and exercises, nor do they directly allow the NRC to require specific scenario content. The NRC believes that its regulations should be revised to do so.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC conducted

Through these efforts, the NRC concluded that although EP measures are designed to address a wide range of events, response to hostile action can present unique challenges not addressed in licensee and ORO drills and exercises, such as:

• Extensive coordination between operations, security, and EP;

• Use of the alternative emergency response facilities for activation of the ERO;

• Execution of initial response actions in a hostile environment (i.e., during simulated hostile action);

• The need to shelter personnel from armed attack or aircraft attack in a manner very different from that used during radiological emergencies;

• Conduct of operations and repair activities when the site conditions prevent normal access due to fire, locked doors, security measures, and areas that have not yet been secured;

• Conduct of operations and repair activities with large areas of the plant damaged or on fire;

• Rescue of and medical attention to significant numbers of personnel; and

• Prioritization of efforts to protect plant equipment or to secure access to plant areas for repairs.

In response to BL-05-02, all nuclear plant licensees stated that they would develop and implement an enhanced drill and exercise program

rations and repair activities with large areas of the plant damaged or on fire;

• Rescue of and medical attention to significant numbers of personnel; and

• Prioritization of efforts to protect plant equipment or to secure access to plant areas for repairs.

In response to BL-05-02, all nuclear plant licensees stated that they would develop and implement an enhanced drill and exercise program. Program elements are captured in a guidance document developed by NEI, NEI 06-04, Rev. 1, “Conducting a Hostile Action-Based Emergency Response Drill.” The NRC endorsed this document for use in a pilot program in RIS 2008-08, “Endorsement of Revision 1 to Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance Document NEI 06-04, `Conducting a Hostile Action-Based Emergency Response Drill,' ” dated March 19, 2008. However, implementation of these enhancements is voluntary, and the NRC cannot require licensees to maintain these enhancements, absent issuance of an order or a regulation. Issuance of orders is resource intensive and an inefficient approach to address a generic problem.

The NRC also became aware of a related issue regarding EP exercise scenarios. The NRC inspects licensee response during these exercises and FEMA evaluates the capabilities of OROs. Licensees have performed many evaluated EP exercises and understand NRC and FEMA expectations. Licensees design scenarios in coordination with State and local agencies to demonstrate all key EP functions in a manner that facilitates evaluation. As a result, scenarios have become predictable and may precondition responders to sequential escalation of emergency classifications that always culminate in a large radiological release. Current biennial exercise scenarios do not resemble credible reactor accidents in that the timing is improbable and the intermittent containment failure typically used is unlikely. Typical scenarios used by licensees in biennial exercises involve simulated accidents, such as a loss of coolant accident or a steam generator tube rupture

ications that always culminate in a large radiological release. Current biennial exercise scenarios do not resemble credible reactor accidents in that the timing is improbable and the intermittent containment failure typically used is unlikely. Typical scenarios used by licensees in biennial exercises involve simulated accidents, such as a loss of coolant accident or a steam generator tube rupture. However, certain predictable artifacts emerge in almost all biennial exercise scenarios, including the following:

• The ERO will not be allowed to mitigate the accident before a release occurs;

• The release will occur after a General Emergency is declared;

• The release will be terminated before the exercise ends; and

• The exercise will escalate sequentially through the emergency classes.

In short, responders may be preconditioned to accident sequences that are not likely to resemble the accidents they could realistically face.

In SRM-M060502, dated June 29, 2006, the Commission directed the NRC staff to develop exercise scenarios in conjunction with DHS, as follows:

The staff should coordinate with DHS to develop emergency planning exercise scenarios which would help avoid anticipatory responses associated with preconditioning of participants by incorporating a wide spectrum of releases (ranging from little or no release to a large release) and events, including security-based events. These scenarios should emphasize the expected interfaces and coordination between key decision-makers based on realistic postulated events. The staff should share experiences of preconditioning or “negative training” with DHS.

econditioning or “negative training” with DHS.

As a result of the SRM, a joint NRC/FEMA working group was formed to review the development of emergency planning exercise scenarios. The working group was assigned the task of identifying the NRC and FEMA regulations that would require revision to enhance exercise scenarios and guidance to assist in the effective implementation of these regulations. The working group recommended several changes to the FEMA Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program Manual that comport with proposed changes to NRC regulations to address preconditioning and the incorporation of hostile action exercise scenarios.

FEMA held focus group meetings in several FEMA regions to discuss potential policy changes to the REP Program Manual. The NRC supported these meetings to facilitate questions as they may relate to the EP rulemaking issue of challenging drills and exercises. For example, stakeholders voiced opinions on the requirements for the development and review of exercise scenarios, whether all emergency classification levels (ECLs) must be included in each exercise or if one or more ECLs can be skipped, how radiological release conditions and options could vary, and if a spectrum of scenarios will be varied to create more realistic and challenging exercises. Comments received from the several different focus groups will inform the update to the REP Program Manual. The NRC also considered stakeholder views as they relate to this proposed rule and enhancements to EP guidance, although some comments were received after the deadline to be considered in this proposed rule.

The NRC believes that a regulatory change would be necessary to enhance scenario content to include hostile action scenarios and reduce preconditioning through a wide spectrum of challenges. This change would improve licensee ERO capability to protect public health and safety under all accident scenarios as well as reverse any trend toward preconditioning

to be considered in this proposed rule.

The NRC also considered not making any change to the regulations, but rejected that option because it would not ensure correction of the issues discussed above. The NRC also discussed the use of voluntary programs and although this option could be successful, the NRC could not require that changes made would be permanent and consistent across all sites.

The NRC is proposing to revise Appendix E, Section IV.F. to address these issues, as discussed in Section V of this document.

B. Non-Security Related Issues

The remaining proposed changes would be new or amended requirements

1. Backup Means for Alert and Notification Systems

The regulations for alert and notification system (ANS) capabilities are found in § 50.47(b)(5) and Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3. and require licensees to establish the capability to promptly alert and notify the public if there is an emergency event while meeting certain ANS design objectives. NRC regulations do not currently require backup power for sirens or other backup ANS alerting capabilities when a major portion of the primary alerting means is unavailable. The regulations also do not address backup notification capabilities. If a major portion of a facility's ANS is unavailable and no backup exists, then the public may not be promptly alerted of an event at the facility and the protective actions to be taken, which could affect the public's response to the event

alerting capabilities when a major portion of the primary alerting means is unavailable. The regulations also do not address backup notification capabilities. If a major portion of a facility's ANS is unavailable and no backup exists, then the public may not be promptly alerted of an event at the facility and the protective actions to be taken, which could affect the public's response to the event.

An ANS provides the capability to promptly alert the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant in case of an emergency event and to inform the public what protective actions may need to be taken. The predominant method used around U.S. nuclear power plants for alerting the public is an ANS based on sirens to provide an acoustic warning signal. Some sites employ other means, such as tone alert radios and route alerting, as either primary or supplemental alerting methods. The public typically receives information about an event and offsite protective actions via emergency alert system (EAS) broadcasts or other means, such as mobile loudspeakers.

In several instances, nuclear power plants have lost all or a major portion of the alert function of an ANS for various reasons, such as damage to ANS components caused by severe weather, loss of offsite alternating current (AC) power, malfunction of ANS activation equipment, or unexpected problems resulting from ANS hardware/software modifications. In other situations, the notification capability has been lost (e.g., the inability to activate tone alert radios which are used to provide both an alert signal and notification function)

mage to ANS components caused by severe weather, loss of offsite alternating current (AC) power, malfunction of ANS activation equipment, or unexpected problems resulting from ANS hardware/software modifications. In other situations, the notification capability has been lost (e.g., the inability to activate tone alert radios which are used to provide both an alert signal and notification function).

The NRC has issued multiple INs to document the circumstances when ANS failures have occurred, including IN 2002-25, “Challenges to Licensees' Ability to Provide Prompt Public Notification and Information During an Emergency Preparedness Event,” dated August 26, 2002; IN 2005-06, “Failure to Maintain Alert and Notification System Tone Alert Radio Capability,” dated March 30, 2005; and IN 2006-28, “Siren System Failures Due to Erroneous Siren System Signal,” dated December 22, 2006. IN 1996-19, “Failure of Tone Alert Radios to Activate When Receiving a Shortened Activation Signal,” dated April 2, 1996, addressed the inability to activate some tone alert radios because of a shorter tone activation signal permitted as part of EAS implementation. Without the ability to warn the population, the effectiveness of the notification element may be significantly reduced. Having a backup means in place would lessen the impact of the loss of the primary ANS.

Other events impacting ANS operability have involved the widespread loss of the electrical grid providing power to siren-based systems, such as the electrical blackout in several areas of the northeastern United States and portions of Canada in August 2003. As discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.155, “Station Blackout” (August 1988), although the likelihood of failure of the onsite AC power system coincidental with the loss of offsite power is small, station blackout events may be substantial contributors to core damage events for some plants.

The U.S

lackout in several areas of the northeastern United States and portions of Canada in August 2003. As discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.155, “Station Blackout” (August 1988), although the likelihood of failure of the onsite AC power system coincidental with the loss of offsite power is small, station blackout events may be substantial contributors to core damage events for some plants.

The U.S. Congress recognized that all emergency notification systems may not operate in the absence of an AC power supply and encouraged the use of newer alerting and notification technology. In U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Report 107-740, FEMA was directed to update its guidance on outdoor warning and mass notification systems and require all warning systems to be operable in the absence of an AC power supply. The House Appropriations Committee also urged FEMA to consult with other relevant agencies and revise the national standard for outdoor warning and mass notification to reflect state-of-the-art technology. Moreover, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Commission to require backup power for the emergency notification system, including siren systems, for nuclear power plants located where there is a permanent population, as determined by the 2000 decennial census, in excess of 15,000,000 within a 50-mile radius of the power plant. Therefore, it is appropriate that the NRC also consider changes to its existing regulations and guidance regarding warning systems for all nuclear power reactor licensees.

The NRC considered several options to attempt to resolve this issue, including reliance on ANS design review standards and related guidance documents to address ANS backup means

,000 within a 50-mile radius of the power plant. Therefore, it is appropriate that the NRC also consider changes to its existing regulations and guidance regarding warning systems for all nuclear power reactor licensees.

The NRC considered several options to attempt to resolve this issue, including reliance on ANS design review standards and related guidance documents to address ANS backup means. Several NRC and FEMA guidance documents, such as NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-10, “Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants,” dated November 1985, and FEMA Guidance Memorandum AN-1, “FEMA Action to Qualify Alert and Notification Systems Against NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 and FEMA-REP-10,” dated April 21, 1987, contain detailed information on ANS capabilities and design review methodology. Additional information on ANS backup capabilities could be provided in revisions to these documents. As guidance, a provision for an ANS backup means would not be considered a requirement and its applicability to existing approved ANS designs would be considered optional. As noted previously in this discussion, FEMA was also directed to update its guidance to require all warning systems to be operable in the absence of an alternating current power supply. However, guidance changes limited to backup power requirements for the alerting function would not address backup capabilities for other types of alerting devices or the ANS notification function. In summary, this option does not provide a regulatory resolution to ensure that nuclear power plant ANS designs include a backup method to the primary means for both alerting and notification, and thus the NRC considered this option to be unacceptable.

Use of a voluntary approach for ANS backup means was also considered

lities for other types of alerting devices or the ANS notification function. In summary, this option does not provide a regulatory resolution to ensure that nuclear power plant ANS designs include a backup method to the primary means for both alerting and notification, and thus the NRC considered this option to be unacceptable.

Use of a voluntary approach for ANS backup means was also considered. Some current nuclear power plant ANS designs address one or more aspects of backup ANS capabilities, such as providing backup power in the event primary power to sirens is lost, using backup route alerting when sirens are inoperable, or designating multiple EAS broadcast stations to ensure that instructional messages can be transmitted. A voluntary approach may be appropriate because State and local authorities can usually compensate for the temporary loss of some ANS capabilities. However, allowing licensees or applicants to voluntarily install backup ANS capabilities will not ensure that both the alerting and notification functions are addressed, or that new sites will have warning systems designed with comprehensive backup ANS capabilities. Given the importance of ANS to alert the public of an event at a facility and the protective actions to be taken, and without any voluntary industry commitment that

The NRC believes that nuclear power reactor licensees should be required to have backup ANS methods and therefore is proposing rulemaking to address backup capabilities for both the alert and notification functions. Three alternatives for addressing this issue in rulemaking were considered.

ue in rulemaking were considered.

The first alternative would add a regulatory requirement for ANS backup power. The most common warning system used at U.S. nuclear power plants is based on sirens that are powered directly, or indirectly through batteries, by an AC power source. As noted previously in this discussion, the loss of power is not the only failure mode that can impact warning systems. Causes of past ANS inoperability problems have included the inability to detect siren failures, the inability to activate sirens, the failure to test and maintain personal home alerting devices, the use of telephone call-inhibiting devices, and the failure to provide and maintain distribution lists of tone alert radios. Thus, a regulatory requirement addressing only backup ANS power would not eliminate any of these other failure modes. This approach would prescribe one specific method as a backup means, precluding licensees (or applicants) and offsite officials from considering alternative methods, such as route alerting or newer communications technology, that may be more suitable for certain nuclear power plant sites. In summary, it would address only one of several ANS failure modes (i.e., loss of AC power) for one alerting method (i.e., sirens). It would not address backup methods for other types of alerting devices or any part of the notification process. Therefore, the NRC considered this approach to be unacceptable.

evices or any part of the notification process. Therefore, the NRC considered this approach to be unacceptable.

The second alternative would require that the primary ANS be designed so there would be no common single failure mode for the system; therefore, a backup system would not be needed. This approach would ensure that the entire ANS is designed and built to a very high level of reliability. Any equipment necessary for ANS activation and operation (e.g., computers, radio transmitters and radio towers, plus the actual alerting devices and notification means) would have redundant components and power sources as necessary to eliminate any common single failure mode, such as a widespread power outage affecting a siren-based system. However, ensuring that all ANS common single failure vulnerabilities have been identified and adequately addressed would be difficult. Even after extensive analysis and testing of a warning system, a common failure mechanism may not become evident until the system is to be activated for an emergency event. For a siren-based system, several additional sirens (with backup power capabilities) may need to be installed to provide overlapping acoustic coverage in the event clusters of sirens fail and thus may discourage licensees at future nuclear power plant sites from using these systems due to the increased cost for installing additional sirens. This approach may not be applicable to non-electronic primary warning systems based on other methods, such as route alerting. For these reasons, the NRC considered this approach to be unacceptable. Rejecting this approach does not mean that the issue of backup power for warning systems will be left unaddressed. As discussed previously, the House Committee on Appropriations has directed FEMA to require all outdoor warning systems to be operable in the absence of AC power.

The third alternative was selected for rulemaking and would revise Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3

be unacceptable. Rejecting this approach does not mean that the issue of backup power for warning systems will be left unaddressed. As discussed previously, the House Committee on Appropriations has directed FEMA to require all outdoor warning systems to be operable in the absence of AC power.

The third alternative was selected for rulemaking and would revise Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3. to require backup measures that would be implemented when the primary means of alerting and notification are unavailable. These proposed changes are discussed in Section V of this document.

2. Emergency Declaration Timeliness

In its oversight of licensee EP programs, the NRC has observed a few licensees whose responses in performing emergency declarations were inappropriately delayed. This situation may be a result of a lack of a specific regulatory timeliness requirement. Emergency declaration is the process by which a licensee determines whether an off-normal plant condition warrants declaration as an emergency and, if so, which of the four emergency classes—Notification of Unusual Event, Alert, Site Area Emergency, or General Emergency—is to be declared.

These declarations are fundamental to the licensee's EP program in that onsite and offsite emergency response activities are implemented in a staged, proportional manner, based upon the level of the declared emergency. If an emergency declaration is delayed, the subsequent emergency response actions may not be timely. Emergency response personnel, facilities, and equipment may not be in position should it become necessary to implement measures to protect public health and safety.

The NRC has issued generic communications to alert licensees of these concerns and to advise them of the NRC's expectation that emergency classifications 3 would be made in a prompt manner

mergency response actions may not be timely. Emergency response personnel, facilities, and equipment may not be in position should it become necessary to implement measures to protect public health and safety.

The NRC has issued generic communications to alert licensees of these concerns and to advise them of the NRC's expectation that emergency classifications 3 would be made in a prompt manner. In 1985, the NRC published IN 85-80, “Timely Declaration of an Emergency Class, Implementation of an Emergency Plan, and Emergency Notifications,” to alert licensees of two instances in which declarations and/or notifications of an actual emergency condition were significantly delayed and to express the NRC expectation of timely emergency declarations. In 1995, the NRC found it necessary to publish Emergency Preparedness Position (EPPOS)-2, “Emergency Preparedness Position (EPPOS) on Timeliness of Classification of Emergency Conditions,” to provide guidance to NRC staff in evaluating licensee performance in the area of timely classification. The NRC cited classification delays in actual events and exercises as the reason for issuing the guidance. EPPOS-2 provided the NRC expectation that the classification should be made promptly following indications that conditions have reached an EAL threshold and that 15 minutes would be a reasonable goal for completing the classification once indications are available to the control room operators. The NRC based that conclusion on the belief that 15 minutes is a reasonable period of time for assessing and classifying an emergency once indications are available to cognizant personnel, and that a delay in classification for up to 15 minutes would have a minimal impact upon the overall emergency response and protection of the public health and safety

are available to the control room operators. The NRC based that conclusion on the belief that 15 minutes is a reasonable period of time for assessing and classifying an emergency once indications are available to cognizant personnel, and that a delay in classification for up to 15 minutes would have a minimal impact upon the overall emergency response and protection of the public health and safety. The NRC noted that emergency classification schemes have reached a level of maturity in which the classification of emergencies can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time once the abnormal condition and associated plant parameters are known by cognizant licensee personnel. EPPOS-2 stated that the 15-minute period was not to be viewed as a grace period in which a licensee could resolve a condition that had already exceeded an EAL threshold to avoid a declaration.

3 Early NRC generic communications routinely used the phrase “emergency classification” to denote the outcome of the process to assess, classify, and declare an emergency condition. This document uses the phrase “emergency declaration” in place of “emergency classification” except when summarizing an earlier document.

This 15-minute goal was not a regulatory requirement but was rather a

The NRC considered the following options for addressing this regulatory problem. The first option, take no action, was rejected because it would not address the regulatory problem. The second option, continue to rely on the industry's voluntary PI, was rejected because the existence of the PI has not prevented untimely classifications during actual emergencies. Although these occurrences were associated with Unusual Events or Alerts, the observed weaknesses could also have occurred under different circumstances in which the potential impact to the public could have been greater

second option, continue to rely on the industry's voluntary PI, was rejected because the existence of the PI has not prevented untimely classifications during actual emergencies. Although these occurrences were associated with Unusual Events or Alerts, the observed weaknesses could also have occurred under different circumstances in which the potential impact to the public could have been greater. The third option, issue regulatory guidance, was rejected because although regulatory guidance is an appropriate mechanism for identifying acceptable means for complying with broadly worded regulatory requirements, there is currently no regulatory requirement, broad or otherwise, that emergency declarations meet any particular timeliness criterion. The NRC believes that the fourth option, an amendment of the regulations, would be the best course of action to ensure that licensees are aware that they are responsible for completing emergency declarations in a timely manner in the event of a radiological emergency.

Placing a declaration timeliness criterion into the regulations would clearly establish the NRC's expectations, as well as provide a regulatory framework to consistently enforce these expectations. The NRC considered amending § 50.47(b)(4), Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.B., IV.C., or IV.D., or a combination of all of them. The NRC opted not to amend § 50.47(b)(4) because it is applicable to both onsite and offsite emergency plans, whereas Appendix E is applicable to an applicant or licensee—the entity responsible for making emergency declarations.

The NRC also considered providing either a performance criterion or a capability criterion. Similar to the notification timeliness criterion in Appendix E, Section IV.D.3., in which the NRC requires licensees to be capable of notifying responsible State and local governmental agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency, the NRC opted to propose a capability criterion, rather than an inflexible performance criterion

ing either a performance criterion or a capability criterion. Similar to the notification timeliness criterion in Appendix E, Section IV.D.3., in which the NRC requires licensees to be capable of notifying responsible State and local governmental agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency, the NRC opted to propose a capability criterion, rather than an inflexible performance criterion. This would allow licensees some degree of flexibility during an actual radiological emergency in addressing extenuating circumstances that may arise when an emergency declaration may need to be delayed in the interest of performing plant operations that are more urgently needed to protect public health and safety. These delays would be found acceptable if they did not deny State and local authorities the opportunity to implement actions to protect the public health or safety under their emergency plans and the cause of the delay was not reasonably within the licensee's ability to foresee and prevent. Based upon these considerations, the NRC is proposing to revise Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.C. to address this issue by providing a capability criterion. These proposed changes are discussed in Section V of this document.

3. Emergency Operations Facility—Performance-Based Approach

Several nuclear power plant licensees have submitted requests for NRC approval to combine EOFs for plants they operate within a State or in multiple States into a consolidated EOF. In some instances, the consolidated EOF is located at a substantial distance from one or more of the plant sites and is no longer considered a “near-site” facility, as required by §§ 50.34(f)(2)(xxv), 50.47(b)(3), 50.47(d)(1), 50.54(gg)(1)(i), and Appendix E, Sections IV.E.8., IV.E.9.c., and IV.E.9.d

combine EOFs for plants they operate within a State or in multiple States into a consolidated EOF. In some instances, the consolidated EOF is located at a substantial distance from one or more of the plant sites and is no longer considered a “near-site” facility, as required by §§ 50.34(f)(2)(xxv), 50.47(b)(3), 50.47(d)(1), 50.54(gg)(1)(i), and Appendix E, Sections IV.E.8., IV.E.9.c., and IV.E.9.d. Guidance documents, including NUREG-0696, “Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities,” and NUREG-0737, “Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,” Supplement 1, “Requirements for Emergency Response Capabilities,” that provide criteria for establishing and locating emergency response facilities also refer to the EOF as a near-site facility. However, the regulations and guidance do not explicitly define the term “near-site.” This regulatory structure has resulted in confusion for licensees with reasonable technical bases for moving or consolidating EOFs that would no longer be considered “near-site” and led to requests for exceptions to NRC guidance and exemptions from NRC regulations to move or consolidate their EOFs.

In addition, neither regulations nor guidance documents address the capabilities and functional requirements for a consolidated EOF, such as capabilities for handling simultaneous events at two or more sites, or having provisions for the NRC and offsite officials to relocate to a facility nearer the site if they desire. Thus, licensees have been uncertain about when they need to submit requests for exceptions or exemptions, which alternative approaches to existing EOF distance and other facility criteria may be acceptable, and what additional capabilities they need to address for a consolidated EOF. A regulatory mechanism (§ 50.54(q)) is already in place that allows licensees to make changes to their emergency plans without prior Commission approval when certain conditions are met. This mechanism could be applied to consolidation of EOFs if clearer criteria were established

other facility criteria may be acceptable, and what additional capabilities they need to address for a consolidated EOF. A regulatory mechanism (§ 50.54(q)) is already in place that allows licensees to make changes to their emergency plans without prior Commission approval when certain conditions are met. This mechanism could be applied to consolidation of EOFs if clearer criteria were established. In the absence of clear criteria, several recent licensee requests to consolidate EOFs have been evaluated by the NRC staff and reviewed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis.

Each nuclear power plant site is required to have an EOF where the licensee provides overall management of its resources in response to an emergency and coordinates emergency response activities with Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. The original EOF siting criteria called for the facility to be located near the nuclear power reactor site and imposed a 20-mile upper limit (later modified by the Commission to 25 miles) for the distance between the site and the EOF. This upper limit was generally considered to be the maximum distance from the nuclear power reactor site within which face-to-face communications between the licensee, offsite officials, and NRC staff could be facilitated, and which also permitted the timely briefing and debriefing of personnel going to and from the site. However, advances in computer and communication technology after the original EOF siting criteria were established now allow EOF functions to be effectively performed independent of distance from the site. Computer-based systems allow plant parameter, meteorological data, and radiological information for multiple sites to be collected, analyzed, trended, and displayed in a remotely located facility

owever, advances in computer and communication technology after the original EOF siting criteria were established now allow EOF functions to be effectively performed independent of distance from the site. Computer-based systems allow plant parameter, meteorological data, and radiological information for multiple sites to be collected, analyzed, trended, and displayed in a remotely located facility. Data and voice communications between the EOF and other onsite/offsite emergency response facilities can be addressed through a variety of independent systems, such as microwave, telephone, internet,

Furthermore, nuclear utility consolidation has resulted in initiatives to standardize fleet emergency plans, use consolidated EOFs, and staff EOFs by designated corporate personnel. Standardized plans, implementing procedures, and accident assessment tools, such as a common dose projection model, allow emergency responders in a consolidated facility to effectively perform their functions for multiple sites, even if the EOF is not a near-site facility. Consolidated facilities eliminate the need to duplicate work space, displays, communication networks, and other capabilities for each site. Consolidated facilities can also be located at or near corporate offices where nuclear support personnel designated to fill EOF positions can respond more quickly.

The Commission, in the SRM to SECY-04-0236, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company's Proposal to Establish a Common Emergency Operating Facility at Its Corporate Headquarters,” dated February 23, 2005, directed the NRC staff to consider resolving these issues through rulemaking. In that SRM, the Commission approved the proposal for a consolidated EOF for three nuclear power reactor sites operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company at the company's corporate headquarters

mpany's Proposal to Establish a Common Emergency Operating Facility at Its Corporate Headquarters,” dated February 23, 2005, directed the NRC staff to consider resolving these issues through rulemaking. In that SRM, the Commission approved the proposal for a consolidated EOF for three nuclear power reactor sites operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company at the company's corporate headquarters. The Commission also instructed the NRC staff to consider making “the requirements for EOFs more performance-based to allow other multi-plant licensees to consolidate their EOFs, if those licensees can demonstrate their emergency response strategies will adequately cope with an emergency at any one of the associated plants.”

To address the EOF “near-site” and consolidation issues, the NRC considered maintaining EOF distance criteria as guidance only and to specify other EOF criteria in guidance rather than in the regulations. However, providing these criteria as guidance only would not ensure that future applicants would follow the criteria. Thus, an EOF could be located within 10 miles of a site with no backup facility provided, or could be located beyond 25 miles of a site without providing a facility closer to a site for NRC site team and offsite response personnel. An EOF could be implemented without meeting the proposed performance-based criteria. A licensee could relocate or consolidate an existing approved facility without meeting all or some of the criteria and without prior NRC approval as long as the licensee determined that the provisions of § 50.54(q) were met. Under these circumstances, an EOF could be implemented that may not provide all of the capabilities that the NRC believes are necessary for such a facility to be fully effective. Therefore, the NRC determined that this option would not be appropriate

out meeting all or some of the criteria and without prior NRC approval as long as the licensee determined that the provisions of § 50.54(q) were met. Under these circumstances, an EOF could be implemented that may not provide all of the capabilities that the NRC believes are necessary for such a facility to be fully effective. Therefore, the NRC determined that this option would not be appropriate.

The NRC also considered revising the regulations (and providing associated performance-based criteria) to allow an EOF to be located more than 25 miles from a nuclear power reactor site without prior NRC approval only in situations involving the consolidation of EOFs for multiple sites operated by the same licensee. However, the NRC determined that excluding licensees from the ability to locate an EOF for a single site, or to co-locate an EOF for two or more nuclear power plants operated by different licensees, at distances beyond 25 miles from a site without prior NRC approval would be unnecessarily restrictive. The capability of existing EOFs located more than 25 miles from a site to function as effective emergency response facilities has been demonstrated in numerous exercises and several actual events, indicating that the distance between the EOF and a site is not a critical factor in determining the overall effectiveness of the facility. The siting of a single-site or co-located EOF at greater distances from a nuclear power plant may also offer benefits to licensees and offsite officials in terms of increased staffing flexibility and reduced response times. Licensees may be able to use additional employees as EOF emergency responders (who would otherwise be unavailable due to long response times) when the EOF is located closer to their workplace, such as a corporate office, or areas where these employees reside

power plant may also offer benefits to licensees and offsite officials in terms of increased staffing flexibility and reduced response times. Licensees may be able to use additional employees as EOF emergency responders (who would otherwise be unavailable due to long response times) when the EOF is located closer to their workplace, such as a corporate office, or areas where these employees reside. Offsite officials that report to the EOF may have shorter response times when the EOF can be located in the vicinity of government facilities, or they may be able to co-locate their emergency operations at the EOF. For these reasons, the NRC believes that the options for EOF locations should be available to all licensees as long as the EOF would meet the applicable functional requirements associated with consolidated EOFs previously approved by the NRC and licensees would provide a facility closer to the site in situations where the EOF is more than 25 miles from a site. This approach would ensure that an EOF would have the capabilities necessary to be fully effective regardless of its location with respect to the nuclear power plant site, and that provisions would be in place for a facility closer to the site for use by NRC site team and offsite responders. Therefore, the NRC is proposing changes to NRC regulations (and associated guidance) so the criteria for all EOFs would reflect a performance-based approach. The NRC is also proposing revisions to regulations (and guidance) to remove the references to an EOF as a “near-site” facility and to incorporate specific EOF distance criteria into the regulations, as discussed in Section V of this document.

ar-site” facility and to incorporate specific EOF distance criteria into the regulations, as discussed in Section V of this document.

In a conforming change, § 52.79(a)(17) would be revised to make clear that combined license applications need not address the requirement governing TSCs, OSCs and EOFs in § 50.34(f)(2)(xxv). Instead, the requirements in Appendix E, Section IV.E.8.a.(i) would apply. That section would accurately reflect the need for the combined license application to address an EOF; by contrast § 50.34(f)(2)(xxv) only requires construction permits (and not combined licenses) to address an EOF. The NRC considered, as an alternative to modifying § 52.79(a)(17), correcting § 50.34(f)(xxv) to remove the language limiting the requirement to address an EOF to construction permit applications. The NRC decided not to propose that approach, but instead have the general requirements for EP, including Appendix E, apply to combined license applications by virtue of § 52.79(a)(21).

4. Evacuation Time Estimate Updating

EP regulations at § 50.47(b)(10) and Part 50, Appendix E, Sections II.G., III., and IV. currently require nuclear power plant operating license applicants to provide evacuation time estimates (ETEs) for the public located in the plume exposure pathway EPZ. These ETEs are used in the planning process to identify potential challenges to efficient evacuation, such as traffic constraints, and, in the event of an accident, to assist the onsite and offsite emergency response managers in making appropriate decisions regarding the protection of the public. The current regulations do not require any review or revision of ETEs following the initial licensing of the plant. Although some licensees do revise ETEs based on updated census data, the use of ETEs in evacuation planning is inconsistent and they currently do not affect the development of public protective action strategies

in making appropriate decisions regarding the protection of the public. The current regulations do not require any review or revision of ETEs following the initial licensing of the plant. Although some licensees do revise ETEs based on updated census data, the use of ETEs in evacuation planning is inconsistent and they currently do not affect the development of public protective action strategies.

Nuclear power plant operating license applicants are responsible for developing the ETE analysis for their respective sites. They submit the analysis to the NRC in support of their emergency plans, usually as a stand-

In NUREG/CR-6953, Vol. 1, “Review of NUREG-0654 Supplement 3, Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations for Severe Accidents,” the NRC presented the results of a study of its protective action recommendation guidance. The NRC concluded in the study that ETE information is important in developing public protective action strategies and should be used to identify improvements to evacuation plans. The effectiveness of protective action recommendation strategies is sensitive to the ETE, and therefore, it is important to reduce the uncertainties associated with ETEs. Improving the accuracy and quality of ETE values would help licensees recommend and offsite officials determine the most appropriate protective action. For instance, in the study, the NRC determined that for some scenarios sheltering may be more protective than immediate evacuation if the evacuation time is longer than a few hours, depending on site-specific factors. Further, the NRC concluded that the effect of population change upon evacuation times should be understood by OROs and incorporated into protective action strategies.

population change upon evacuation times should be understood by OROs and incorporated into protective action strategies.

To address this issue, the NRC considered amending the current regulations to require licensees to assess changes to the EPZ infrastructure and population. The NRC believed that changes in infrastructure, or addition of a large subdivision to the EPZ, could also impact the ETE. The NRC consulted with Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), who are experts in emergency evacuations and have researched and drafted several NRC studies related to evacuation (e.g., NUREG/CR-6863, “Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG/CR-6864, “Identification and Analysis of Factors Affecting Emergency Evacuations,” and NUREG/CR-6953). Based upon their expert opinion, SNL confirmed that the major contributor to changes in ETE is changes in population. Although changes in infrastructure can impact the ETE, population is the more important factor.

The planning and budget cycle for infrastructure projects is measured in years, as indicated in GAO-03-764T, “Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, ‘Federal Aid Highways: Cost and Oversight of Major Highway and Bridge Projects—Issues and Options.’ ” Within the years it takes to plan, budget, and construct highway infrastructure, the opportunity exists to include such improvements in the ETE as planned or constructed, based on the timing of the infrastructure, whereas significant population changes can occur over shorter periods of time. Therefore, with population changes as the major contributor and infrastructure changes as an enveloped contributor, the NRC determined that simplifying the regulations to explicitly require assessment of ETEs based on population changes was adequate for updates to ETEs

tructed, based on the timing of the infrastructure, whereas significant population changes can occur over shorter periods of time. Therefore, with population changes as the major contributor and infrastructure changes as an enveloped contributor, the NRC determined that simplifying the regulations to explicitly require assessment of ETEs based on population changes was adequate for updates to ETEs. In the case of an infrastructure change due to a catastrophic event, the NRC already has regulations in place to ensure that licensees consult with OROs to consider the impact of offsite events on evacuation routes and ETEs.

The NRC also considered using guidance as a means to solve the problem of the lack of specificity in regulations directing applicants and licensees on the periodicity for updating ETEs. Although the availability of more detailed guidance would provide applicants and licensees with the tools to better update their ETEs, this option would not provide the regulatory means for enforcing the desired frequency of ETE updates and consistency of ETE determinations.

The NRC is proposing to amend § 50.47(b)(10) and Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV. to require the periodic review of ETEs. The NRC considered codifying that all population changes result in updates to ETEs, but determined that population changes of less than 10 percent would not significantly impact the ETE. The basis for establishing a requirement to update ETEs when the population has changed by at least 10 percent is derived from the U.S. Department of Transportation “Highway Capacity Manual” (HCM), which contains analysis techniques for determining the capacity of a roadway, (i.e., Level of Service (LOS)). The analysis applies a series of curves called the “Speed Flow Curves and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments” to roadways and determines the LOS for a given traffic volume. The analysis shows that traffic volume is a direct indicator of the population involved in an evacuation given the roadway system in the area of concern

ues for determining the capacity of a roadway, (i.e., Level of Service (LOS)). The analysis applies a series of curves called the “Speed Flow Curves and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments” to roadways and determines the LOS for a given traffic volume. The analysis shows that traffic volume is a direct indicator of the population involved in an evacuation given the roadway system in the area of concern. The HCM analysis shows that an increase in 10 percent of vehicles on roadways that are near capacity (such as would be the case in an evacuation) likely creates a decrease of one level of roadway service (i.e., from Level D to Level E). This decrease in roadway service results in slower moving traffic and longer ETEs. The decrease in LOS is not apparent for a vehicle, or population, increase of less than 10 percent.

Additionally, the NRC believes that the 10 percent threshold would balance potential inadequacies and burdens. Based on the HCM analysis, SNL research, and NRC experience, not requiring licensees to assess their ETEs until the population changes by more than 15 percent or 20 percent would allow too large a population change before assessing the impact on ETEs, thereby potentially reducing the effectiveness of the ETEs. At the same time, requiring an assessment of licensee ETEs for a change in population of less than 10 percent would require licensees to make assessments when the change in population would not likely have a meaningful impact on the ETEs. Thus the NRC believes that a population change of 10 percent is the adequate threshold for requiring an assessment of licensees' ETEs.

ctiveness of the ETEs. At the same time, requiring an assessment of licensee ETEs for a change in population of less than 10 percent would require licensees to make assessments when the change in population would not likely have a meaningful impact on the ETEs. Thus the NRC believes that a population change of 10 percent is the adequate threshold for requiring an assessment of licensees' ETEs.

5. Amended Emergency Plan Change Process

Applicants for operating licenses under Part 50 for nuclear power reactors, research reactors, and certain fuel facilities, and early site permits (as applicable) and combined licenses under Part 52 for nuclear power plants, are required by regulation to develop emergency plans that meet the requirements of Appendix E to Part 50 and, for nuclear power reactor license applicants, the standards of § 50.47(b). After the facility license is issued, the holder of the license is required by § 50.54(q) to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the requirements of Appendix E and, for nuclear power reactor licensees, the standards of § 50.47(b). Currently, § 50.54(q) also provides a process under which a licensee may make changes to its approved emergency plans without prior NRC approval provided the changes would not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plans as approved and the plans, as modified, would continue to meet applicable regulations. However, the NRC has determined that the language of § 50.54(q) does not clearly describe the requirements the NRC intended to impose on licensees, leading to

tended to impose on licensees, leading to

A licensee must follow and maintain in effect its emergency plan if the NRC is to continue to find that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as stipulated by § 50.54(s)(2)(ii). The EP regulations generally refer to the onsite emergency plan as a stand-alone document. However, emergency plans rely upon facility capabilities, equipment, and resources that are typically outside of the control of the licensee's emergency planning organization. The NRC has identified several occurrences in which licensee personnel outside of the emergency planning group have changed the status of capabilities and resources under their cognizance without considering the impact on the effectiveness of the emergency plan or without alerting the emergency planning group.

Several enforcement actions in the past few years have been associated with EALs being rendered ineffective by configuration changes made to instruments referenced in an EAL without the change being reflected in the EAL, or without a compensatory action being put into place. Examples include modifications to installed seismic instruments that eliminated the direct readout of acceleration needed for classifying a seismic event and changes in reactor vessel level criteria (in a boiling water reactor) being made without a conforming change being made to the EAL. In another finding, concrete barriers installed in a security-initiated change blocked a site access road required by the emergency plan to be used for site evacuation. Another licensee failed to provide adequate oversight on utility (external to the plant) personnel maintaining the site's ANS, resulting in degradation of that system and subsequent enforcement actions

change being made to the EAL. In another finding, concrete barriers installed in a security-initiated change blocked a site access road required by the emergency plan to be used for site evacuation. Another licensee failed to provide adequate oversight on utility (external to the plant) personnel maintaining the site's ANS, resulting in degradation of that system and subsequent enforcement actions. Based on its experience in reviewing root cause analyses and corrective actions associated with inspection findings, the NRC believes that an underlying cause of these occurrences is often that the licensees' configuration control programs may not adequately consider the impact of configuration changes on the effectiveness of the emergency plan.

The NRC has determined that the phrase “maintain in effect” in § 50.54(q) is not adequately clear in conveying the NRC expectation that an effective emergency plan also requires maintaining the various capabilities and resources relied on in the plan. The phrase “maintain in effect,” as applied to emergency plans in § 50.54(q), has two senses: the first is that the plans are in force; the second is that the plans can achieve the desired result of providing reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Accordingly, the NRC is proposing to amend § 50.54(q) to clarify that the regulatory intent is the latter sense by requiring licensees to follow and “maintain the effectiveness” of their approved emergency plans.

Currently, § 50.54(q) also provides a process under which a licensee may make changes to its approved emergency plan without prior NRC approval provided the changes would not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan as approved and the plan, as modified, would continue to meet applicable regulations. Prior NRC approval is required for any change that could decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan

.54(q) also provides a process under which a licensee may make changes to its approved emergency plan without prior NRC approval provided the changes would not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan as approved and the plan, as modified, would continue to meet applicable regulations. Prior NRC approval is required for any change that could decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan. The NRC and licensees have experienced significant difficulties in implementing this portion of § 50.54(q) because the current rule language does not define what constitutes a decrease in effectiveness of an emergency plan nor does it identify the type of changes that would constitute a decrease in effectiveness of the plan. The lack of clear evaluation criteria has resulted in regulatory inefficiencies, such as licensees submitting for review changes that do not rise to the level requiring prior NRC approval and enforcement actions due to licensees failing to submit changes that were later deemed to warrant such a review. A large fraction of the enforcement actions in the EP Cornerstone are attributable to these findings.

The NRC has attempted to resolve this issue through the publication of regulatory guidance. In 1998, the NRC issued EPPOS-4, “Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure Changes,” to provide guidance to NRC inspectors regarding their review of licensees' emergency plan changes. In 2004, the NEI submitted two white papers proposing a definition of “decrease in effectiveness” for NRC consideration. The NRC could not reach consensus with NEI and thus, did not endorse the NEI guidance. In 2005, the NRC withdrew EPPOS-4 and issued RIS 2005-02, “Clarifying the Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes,” dated February 14, 2005, to (1) clarify the meaning of “decrease in effectiveness,” (2) clarify the process for making changes to emergency plans, and (3) provide some examples of changes that are not decreases in effectiveness

s with NEI and thus, did not endorse the NEI guidance. In 2005, the NRC withdrew EPPOS-4 and issued RIS 2005-02, “Clarifying the Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes,” dated February 14, 2005, to (1) clarify the meaning of “decrease in effectiveness,” (2) clarify the process for making changes to emergency plans, and (3) provide some examples of changes that are not decreases in effectiveness. Although RIS 2005-02 provides useful guidance, the NRC and NEI have continued to discuss ways to improve the § 50.54(q) change process, including the use of a regulatory framework parallel to that of § 50.54(a)(3) for quality assurance programs, § 50.54(p)(2) for safeguards plans, and § 50.59, “Changes, Tests, and Experiments.”

During the development of the proposed rule language, a concern was raised regarding the process to be used by the NRC for reviewing proposed emergency plan changes. Section 50.54(q) directs the licensee to submit such changes under the provisions of § 50.4, which provides the procedures for making certain submissions to the NRC. Some confusion exists as to whether all proposed emergency plan changes submitted under § 50.4 would result in a reduction in effectiveness and whether Commission review of such submissions is necessary. The NRC proposes to clarify that the license amendment process is the correct process to use when reviewing submittals involving a proposed emergency plan change that the licensee has determined constitutes a reduction in effectiveness of the plan. The proposed rule language addresses this clarification. (See Section V of this document for further discussion.)

cation. (See Section V of this document for further discussion.)

The NRC also considered other options for addressing the § 50.54(q) problems. Using a voluntary industry initiative was rejected because the NRC and NEI have yet to agree on the best approach to resolve the problems. Issuing more regulatory guidance was rejected because that approach has been tried but has not resolved the problems. The NRC believes that an amendment to the regulations, supplemented as necessary by regulatory guidance, would be the best course of action and would ensure that (1) the effectiveness of the emergency plans would be maintained, (2) changes to the approved emergency plan would be properly evaluated, and (3) any change that reduces the effectiveness of the plan would be reviewed by the NRC prior to implementation. The NRC proposes to issue regulatory guidance concurrently with the implementation of the amended rule language and would consider stakeholder-developed and -proposed guidance as an alternative to NRC-developed guidance.

The NRC is proposing to amend § 50.54(q) to replace the existing language. Conforming changes have been proposed in Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.B. The NRC also believes that the proposed rule changes would promote consistent and predictable implementation and enforcement, while

6. Removal of Completed One-Time Requirements

The NRC is proposing to eliminate several regulatory provisions that required holders of licenses to take certain one-time actions to improve the state of EP following the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. These actions are complete and the requirements are no longer binding on any current licensee. Corresponding requirements for license applicants are provided in §§ 50.33 and 50.34.

The requirements proposed to be removed are:

veral regulatory provisions that required holders of licenses to take certain one-time actions to improve the state of EP following the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. These actions are complete and the requirements are no longer binding on any current licensee. Corresponding requirements for license applicants are provided in §§ 50.33 and 50.34.

The requirements proposed to be removed are:

(1) Section 50.54(r), which requires licensees of research or test reactors to submit emergency plans to the NRC for approval by September 7, 1982, and, for the facilities with an authorized power level of less than 2 MW thermal, by November 3, 1982. There is no longer a need for this provision because this requirement has expired. The NRC proposes to delete this requirement and designate the section as “reserved.”

(2) Section 50.54(s)(1), which requires nuclear power plant licensees to submit State and local governmental emergency plans within 60 days of the November 3, 1980, effective date of the rule that added § 50.54(s)(1) to Part 50, and that date has elapsed. However, that portion of § 50.54(s)(1) that discusses the size of the EPZs would be retained. There is no longer a need for this provision because this requirement has expired. However, the rule language regarding EPZ size and footnotes 1 and 2 regarding those EPZs remain applicable. The NRC proposes to delete the obsolete text while retaining the current language regarding EPZs and footnotes 1 and 2.

(3) Section 50.54(s)(2)(i), which requires the nuclear power plant licensee, State, and local emergency response plans be implemented by April 1, 1981. There is no longer a need for this provision because this requirement has expired. The NRC proposes to delete § 50.54(s)(2)(i), designating the section as “reserved.”

ext while retaining the current language regarding EPZs and footnotes 1 and 2.

(4) Section 50.54(u), which requires nuclear power reactor licensees to submit, within 60 days of the November 3, 1980, effective date of the rule that added § 50.54(u) to Part 50, to the NRC plans for coping with emergencies that meet the standards in § 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E. There is no longer a need for this provision because this requirement has expired. The NRC proposes to delete this requirement and designate the section as “reserved.”

The NRC is proposing to eliminate these completed one-time requirements in the interest of regulatory clarity. Eliminating these requirements would not relax any currently effective regulatory requirement and would cause no regulatory burden on any current or future licensee or applicant.

III. Public and Stakeholder Input to the Proposed Rule

A. Public and Stakeholder Meetings

As part of its comprehensive assessment of the NRC's EP regulations and guidance and development of this proposed rule, the NRC staff met with internal and external stakeholders, including FEMA management, on numerous occasions including the following:

1. Meeting with NRC regional EP inspectors in January 2005 and January 2006;

2. Meetings with State, local, and Tribal governments and nuclear power industry representatives at the National Radiological Emergency Preparedness (NREP) Conference on April 11-14, 2005, March 27-30, 2006, and April 7-10, 2008;

3. Public meeting with interested stakeholders on August 31 and September 1, 2005;

4. Public meeting with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on May 19, 2006;

3. Public meeting with interested stakeholders on August 31 and September 1, 2005;

4. Public meeting with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on May 19, 2006;

5. Public meeting with the NEI/nuclear power industry representatives on July 19, 2006;

6. Regional meetings with State and local representatives and nuclear power industry working groups that started in 2007;

7. Regulatory Information Conference on March 16, 2007;

8. Public meeting with external stakeholders on March 5, 2008;

9. Meeting with nuclear power industry representatives at the 2008 NEI EP and Communications Forum; and

10. Public meeting with external stakeholders on July 8, 2008.

The NRC also met routinely with representatives of FEMA to coordinate issues of mutual interest and to keep them informed of NRC EP activities. These meetings allowed NRC and FEMA to collaborate on rulemaking and guidance issues, and to ensure alignment and regulatory consistency. In addition, FEMA attended the NRC public meetings regarding the NRC's EP rulemaking. B. Public and Stakeholder Comments Received

At the April 11, 2005, NREP Conference, the NRC and FEMA conducted a workshop with stakeholders. The workshop covered a broad range of EP topics. Unanswered stakeholder comments and questions were recorded by NRC staff, and the NRC and FEMA responded to those questions and comments in “Discussion of NREP ‘Parking Lot' Items.”

RC staff, and the NRC and FEMA responded to those questions and comments in “Discussion of NREP ‘Parking Lot' Items.”

The NRC conducted a public meeting on August 31-September 1, 2005, to obtain input regarding EP requirements and guidance for commercial nuclear power plants. The first day of meetings involved a roundtable discussion of topics related to the review of EP regulations and guidance. During the second day, the NRC staff and stakeholders addressed the “Discussion of NREP ‘Parking Lot' Items” from the April 2005 NREP conference and other stakeholder comments and questions. The NRC requested comments in writing before the August 31-September 1, 2005, meeting and also received comments at the meeting. In addition to comments transcribed from the 2-day public meeting, the NRC accepted written comment submissions until October 31, 2005.

The NRC and FEMA responded to generic comments from the August 31-September 1, 2005, meeting and comments received thereafter in “Summary and Analysis of Comments (Received Between August 31 and October 31, 2005).” Site-specific comments from the public meeting were addressed in “Summary and Analysis of Site-Specific Comments (Received Between August 31 and October 31, 2005).”

The NRC also received comments on the review of the EP regulations and guidance for nuclear power plants at public meetings with stakeholders on May 19, 2006, and July 19, 2006. The May 19, 2006, meeting was transcribed. The NRC staff informed the meeting participants that their comments would be presented to the Commission in a September 2006 SECY paper. These comments were provided to the Commission in an attachment to SECY-06-0200 and, like the stakeholder comments from 2005, were used to inform the staff's recommendations to the Commission in SECY-06-0200.

The NRC received three comment letters that focused on the draft preliminary rule language posted for comment on http://www.regulations.gov on February 29, 2008

a September 2006 SECY paper. These comments were provided to the Commission in an attachment to SECY-06-0200 and, like the stakeholder comments from 2005, were used to inform the staff's recommendations to the Commission in SECY-06-0200.

The NRC received three comment letters that focused on the draft preliminary rule language posted for comment on http://www.regulations.gov on February 29, 2008. One comment letter was submitted by the State of Pennsylvania, one was submitted by NEI, and one was submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists on behalf of several NGOs. A detailed discussion of the public comments and the Commission's responses is contained in

IV. Specific Request for Comments

In addition to the general invitation to submit comments on the proposed rule, the NRC also requests comments on the following questions:

1. Inclusion of National Incident Management System/Incident Command System in EP programs. The NRC is considering the need to integrate the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and more specifically, the Incident Command System (ICS), into licensee EP programs. On February 28, 2003, President Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5), which directed DHS to develop and administer a NIMS. NIMS/ICS provides a consistent nationwide template to enable all government, private-sector, and NGOs to work together during domestic incidents. HSPD-5 requires Federal departments and agencies to make the adoption of NIMS by State and local organizations a condition for Federal preparedness assistance. Non-government entities, such as nuclear power plant licensees, are not required to adopt NIMS. More information about NIMS and ICS may be found at http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index.shtm.

clear power plant licensees, are not required to adopt NIMS. More information about NIMS and ICS may be found at http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index.shtm.

The NRC has observed coordination challenges during hostile action drills and observed discussions in some of the focus groups discussing the FEMA REP Program Manual with respect to the use of the ICS between onsite and offsite responders. It is likely that these issues will be addressed through lessons learned in drills and other training, but consistency across all nuclear plant sites may be an issue. The NRC is seeking comments on whether the NRC should issue regulations requiring that licensees train responders and implement the ICS to improve interface with offsite response organizations.

2. Shift staffing and augmentation. Licensees are required by § 50.47(b)(2) and Appendix E to Part 50 to maintain an ERO comprising both an on-shift emergency organization and an organization capable of augmenting the shift in a timely manner. However, the regulations state that this shift staffing for emergency response must be “adequate” without providing a definition of “adequate” and are silent with regard to what constitutes a timely augmentation. NUREG-0654 defines the measure of adequacy and divides the ERO augmentation into 30-minute and 60-minute responders. However, the guidance is not succinct, resulting in inconsistencies in ERO shift staffing and augmentation strategies among nuclear power reactor licensees.

In SECY-06-0200, the NRC staff identified shift staffing as an area of concern, noting the challenge in evaluating the adequacy of licensee shift staffing because of the lack of clarity regarding the functional requirements for emergency response. To address this issue, the NRC considered a revision to its regulations to establish functional requirements for the emergency responders instead of focusing on specific emergency responder positions

staffing as an area of concern, noting the challenge in evaluating the adequacy of licensee shift staffing because of the lack of clarity regarding the functional requirements for emergency response. To address this issue, the NRC considered a revision to its regulations to establish functional requirements for the emergency responders instead of focusing on specific emergency responder positions. The NRC also realized that the functional requirements may be dependant upon site- and scenario-specific parameters. Consequently, the NRC attempted to design a performance-based system for identifying shift staffing needs and intended to include it in the development of a broader EP performance-based regulatory regimen. As a result, the shift staffing element was no longer considered in this rulemaking effort.

However, some stakeholders continue to express concern regarding emergency response organization staffing. The NRC recognizes that there is merit in enhancing the regulations to provide clear direction regarding adequate staffing, such as achieving regulatory stability through industry consistency and accommodating technological advancements. Toward that end, the NRC requests comments on whether the NRC should enhance its current regulations to be more explicit in the number of ERO staff necessary for nuclear power plant emergencies. When responding to this question, please consider the following draft staffing table. The table provides proposed staff functions and minimum staffing levels for the on-shift and augmenting emergency response organization. The table modifies the original guidance of NUREG-0654, Table B-1 with lessons learned from several years of EP program inspections by the NRC.

l guidance of NUREG-0654, Table B-1 with lessons learned from several years of EP program inspections by the NRC.

On-shift 1 Augment w/in 60 min. 1 Augment w/in 90 min. 1 2 Emergency Director (1) (Shift Manager): Emergency Director (1) (TSC): Emergency Director (1) (EOF): • Responsible for overall ERO Command & Control until relieved • Responsible for overall ERO Command & Control until relieved. • Responsible for overall ERO Command & Control. • Responsible for approving event classifications and PARs until relieved • Responsible for approving event classifications and PARs until relieved. • Responsible for approving PARs. Communicator (1): • Responsible for communicating event classifications and PARs to offsite agencies, including the NRC. Communicator (1) (TSC) [In addition to the one already on-shift]: • Assume responsibility for either ORO or NRC communications from on-shift Communicator. Communicator (1) (EOF): • Assumes responsibility for communicating PARs, as well as plant updates, to the NRC (HPN). Qualified Health Physics Personnel (2): 3 • Responsible for providing Health Physics coverage to the on-shift staff. Site Radiation Protection Coordinator (SRPC) (1) (TSC): • Responsible for evaluating and assessing plant and offsite data in the development of onsite protective actions and offsite PARs. • Responsible for recommending onsite and offsite PARs to the Emergency Director. • Responsible for all Radiation Protection activities, including Field Team direction. Site Radiation Protection Director (SRPD) (1) (EOF): • Responsible for evaluating and assessing plant and offsite data in the development of offsite PARs. • Responsible for recommending offsite PARs to the Emergency Director. • Responsible for Field Team direction. Dose Projections (1): • Responsible for providing dose projections to the Emergency Director for PAR determinations, until relieved

n. Site Radiation Protection Director (SRPD) (1) (EOF): • Responsible for evaluating and assessing plant and offsite data in the development of offsite PARs. • Responsible for recommending offsite PARs to the Emergency Director. • Responsible for Field Team direction. Dose Projections (1): • Responsible for providing dose projections to the Emergency Director for PAR determinations, until relieved. Additional Qualified Health Physics Technicians [In addition to the personnel already on-shift] (OSC): • (4) Responsible for providing Health Physics coverage for OSC personnel in the plant. • (2) Responsible for plant surveys. Additional Qualified Health Physics Technicians [In addition to the personnel already on-site] (OSC): • (2) Responsible for providing health physics support for the emergency response organization. • (1) Responsible for controlling dosimetry issuance and maintaining plant access control for radiologically controlled areas. EAL Classifications/PARs (1): 4 Dose Projections (1) (TSC): Dose Projections (1) (EOF): • Responsible for evaluating plant conditions and dose projections and recommending event classifications and PARs to the Emergency Director, until relieved • Responsible for providing dose projections to the SRPC for PAR determinations. • Responsible for providing dose projections to the SRPD for PAR determinations. Core/Thermal Hydraulics Eng (1): 4 • Responsible for evaluating reactor conditions and providing input to the Emergency Director until relieved. Event Classifications (1) (TSC): • Responsible for evaluating plant conditions and recommending event classifications to the Emergency Director. Off-Site Field Team B: • (1) Qualified Radiation Monitor responsible for assessing environ radiation/contamination and providing input to SRPC. Also responsible for providing Health Physics coverage for team. • (1) Driver responsible for transportation. Fire Brigade as Defined by Tech Specs: The Fire Brigade is controlled by the site-specific Technical Specifications

ons to the Emergency Director. Off-Site Field Team B: • (1) Qualified Radiation Monitor responsible for assessing environ radiation/contamination and providing input to SRPC. Also responsible for providing Health Physics coverage for team. • (1) Driver responsible for transportation. Fire Brigade as Defined by Tech Specs: The Fire Brigade is controlled by the site-specific Technical Specifications. Core/Thermal Hydraulics/PRA Engineer (1) (TSC): • Responsible for evaluating reactor conditions and providing input to the Emergency Director. • Responsible for evaluating plant system status and providing PRA input to the Emergency Director. OSC Supervisors (4): • (1) Electrical: Responsible for supervising OSC activities related to electrical equipment. • (1) Mechanical: Responsible for supervising OSC activities related to mechanical equipment. • (1) I&C: Responsible for supervising OSC activities related to IC equipment. • (1) HP: Responsible for supervising OSC activities related to radiation protection. Ops Crew as Defined by Tech Specs: Number of Operators on-shift is controlled by the site-specific Technical Specifications. Maintenance (OSC) (1 electrician, 1 mechanic; 1 I&C): • (1) Electrician: Responsible for providing electrical support for ECCS equipment, event mitigation, and equipment repair. IT Lead (1) (TSC): • For sites with digital I&C: Responsible for assisting in ensuring that the digital I&C equipment operates properly. • (1) Mechanic: Responsible for providing mechanical support for ECCS equipment, event mitigation, and equipment repair. • (1) I&C Technician: Responsible for providing assist with logic manipulation, for providing I&C support for event mitigation and equipment repair, and for support of digital I&C if applicable. On-Site Field Team (1 qualified radiation monitor and 1 driver): • (1) Radiation Monitor responsible for assessing environ radiation/contamination and providing input to SRPC. Also responsible for providing Health Physics coverage for team

for providing assist with logic manipulation, for providing I&C support for event mitigation and equipment repair, and for support of digital I&C if applicable. On-Site Field Team (1 qualified radiation monitor and 1 driver): • (1) Radiation Monitor responsible for assessing environ radiation/contamination and providing input to SRPC. Also responsible for providing Health Physics coverage for team. Joint Information Center Manager (JIC): • (1) Responsible for managing and coordinating media information related to the event. • (1) Driver responsible for transportation. Off-Site Field Team A: • (1) Qualified Radiation Monitor responsible for assessing environmental radiation/contamination and providing input to SRPC. Also responsible for providing Health Physics coverage for team. • (1) Driver responsible for transportation. TSC Engineering: • (1) Electrical/I&C: Responsible for providing engineering coverage for the ERO related to electrical or I&C equipment. • (1) Mechanical: Responsible for providing engineering coverage for the ERO related to mechanical equipment. Lead OSC Supervisor (1): • Responsible for OSC activities as directed by Emergency Director. Security Supervisor (1) (TSC): • Responsible for coordinating security-related activities and information with the Emergency Director. Notes: 1. No collateral duties are assigned to an individual that are beyond the capability of that individual to perform at any given time. 2. Specified TSC/OSC personnel must be performing their required functions within 60 (90) minutes of an Alert or higher event classification. Specified EOF/JIC personnel must be performing their required functions within 90 minutes of a Site Area Emergency or higher event classification. 3. Two qualified Health Physics personnel for a single-unit site, or one per unit for a multi-unit site. 4. Could be the STA if justification for collateral duties supports additional responsibilities. 3

nutes of an Alert or higher event classification. Specified EOF/JIC personnel must be performing their required functions within 90 minutes of a Site Area Emergency or higher event classification. 3. Two qualified Health Physics personnel for a single-unit site, or one per unit for a multi-unit site. 4. Could be the STA if justification for collateral duties supports additional responsibilities. 3. Expanding to non-power reactor licensees a requirement for detailed analyses demonstrating timely performance of emergency response functions by on-shift personnel. The NRC is proposing to require nuclear power reactor licensees to demonstrate through detailed analyses that on-shift personnel can perform all assigned emergency plan implementation functions without having competing responsibilities that could prevent them from performing their emergency plan functions. The NRC is seeking comments on whether it is necessary to add a requirement for non-power reactor licensees (i.e., research and test reactor licensees) to include in their emergency plans detailed analyses demonstrating that on-shift personnel can perform all assigned emergency plan implementation functions in a timely manner without having competing responsibilities that could prevent them from performing their emergency plan functions.

4. Expanding to non-power reactor licensees a requirement for the capability to assess, classify, and declare an emergency condition within 15 minutes and a requirement to promptly declare an emergency condition. The NRC proposes to require nuclear power reactor licensees to establish and maintain the capability to assess, classify, and declare an emergency condition within 15 minutes after the availability of indications to plant operators that an EAL has been exceeded, and to also require that an emergency condition be promptly declared as soon as possible following a determination that an EAL has been exceeded

proposes to require nuclear power reactor licensees to establish and maintain the capability to assess, classify, and declare an emergency condition within 15 minutes after the availability of indications to plant operators that an EAL has been exceeded, and to also require that an emergency condition be promptly declared as soon as possible following a determination that an EAL has been exceeded. The NRC is considering whether it is necessary to add the emergency declaration timeliness criteria for non-power reactor licensees. The NRC is seeking comments on whether to issue regulations requiring that non-power reactor licensees meet these criteria.

5. Expanding to non-power reactor licensees a requirement for hostile action event EALs. The NRC is proposing that EALs for nuclear power plants must address hostile action events. The proposed rule regarding EALs would not apply to non-power reactors because the EALs for these reactors are generally based on projected or actual offsite dose and not an initiating event. However, hostile action directed toward a non-power reactor is an initiating event that could conceivably cause an offsite dose. The NRC is seeking comments on whether the NRC should issue regulations requiring that non-power reactor licensees include hostile action event EALs in their emergency plans.

6. Effective date. As proposed, the effective date of this rule would be 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , with an option for a licensee or applicant to defer implementation until 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (with certain exceptions). The NRC is concerned that combined license (COL) and early site permit (ESP) applicants would need to submit timely revisions to docketed applications, to avoid schedule impacts to application reviews, in order to comply with the proposed amendments should they become final before the staff's licensing review is complete

lication of the final rule in the Federal Register (with certain exceptions). The NRC is concerned that combined license (COL) and early site permit (ESP) applicants would need to submit timely revisions to docketed applications, to avoid schedule impacts to application reviews, in order to comply with the proposed amendments should they become final before the staff's licensing review is complete. The NRC is seeking comments on how COL and ESP applicants would implement this rule as proposed, including any impacts to the process and schedule for the applicant to submit and the NRC to review those revisions to COL or ESP applications.

7. Implementation Schedule. As proposed, each element of the proposed rule would be implemented on a schedule that may vary from approximately 30 days to 3 years. The wide variance in the proposed implementation schedule is a result of the varying degree of difficulty and scheduling problems for some elements including the need for analysis, development of processes, procurement of equipment/facilities, and/or coordination with offsite response organizations. The NRC is concerned that the proposed implementation schedule may not be appropriate for some offsite response organizations and licensees. The NRC is seeking comments regarding the appropriateness of the proposed implementation schedule.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

The Commission is proposing to amend portions of § 50.47, “Emergency plans,” § 50.54, “Conditions of licenses;” Part 50, Appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities;” and § 52.79, “Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report.”

Section 50.47 Emergency Plans

The NRC is proposing to amend § 50.47(b)(3) to remove the reference to the EOF as a “near-site” facility. Criteria would be provided in Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E.8

t 50, Appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities;” and § 52.79, “Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report.”

Section 50.47 Emergency Plans

The NRC is proposing to amend § 50.47(b)(3) to remove the reference to the EOF as a “near-site” facility. Criteria would be provided in Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E.8. regarding EOF distance from a nuclear power reactor site and for a performance-based approach for EOFs, specifying that these facilities would need to meet certain functional requirements rather than requiring that they be located within a certain distance of the plant. The intent of this change is discussed in the section on proposed changes to Appendix E, Section IV.E.8. (A discussion of this issue is also provided in Section II.B.3 of this document.)

The NRC is proposing to amend § 50.47(b)(10) to require licensees to review and update their ETEs periodically and submit them to the NRC for review and approval. Proposed changes to Appendix E to Part 50 would provide the required frequency and details of the ETE updates and submissions. Although requirements for ETEs are found in both § 50.47(b) and in Appendix E to Part 50, the level of

This new requirement would ensure that ETEs are reviewed periodically to determine whether population changes have caused significant changes in the ETE. NRC review of ETE updates would ensure they are performed routinely, are consistent across the industry, and are technically sound. NRC guidance would provide more details of NRC expectations for development of an adequate ETE, as well as provide NRC reviewers with guidance on the review of ETE updates. The NRC would expect that the updated ETEs would be shared with OROs to be incorporated into protective action strategies.

The NRC is proposing to amend § 50.47(d)(1) to remove the reference to the EOF as a “near-site” facility. Criteria would be provided in Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E.8

opment of an adequate ETE, as well as provide NRC reviewers with guidance on the review of ETE updates. The NRC would expect that the updated ETEs would be shared with OROs to be incorporated into protective action strategies.

The NRC is proposing to amend § 50.47(d)(1) to remove the reference to the EOF as a “near-site” facility. Criteria would be provided in Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E.8. regarding EOF distance from a nuclear power reactor site and for a performance-based approach for EOFs, specifying that these facilities would need to meet certain functional requirements rather than requiring that they be located within a certain distance of the plant. The intent of this change is discussed in the section on proposed changes to Appendix E, Section IV.E.8. (A discussion of this issue is also provided in Section II.B.3 of this document.)

Section 50.54 Conditions of Licenses

The NRC proposes to revise § 50.54(q) in its entirety. Proposed § 50.54(q)(1) would define four terms whose meanings would be limited to application within the proposed § 50.54(q). Proposed § 50.54(q)(1)(i) would define a “change” to the emergency plan as an action that results in modification or addition to, or removal from, the licensee's emergency plan or the resources, capabilities, and methods identified in the emergency plan. Thus, a change to the emergency plan would not be limited to revisions to the document labeled “emergency plan.” For example, a proposed plant configuration change that removes a seismic instrument relied upon in the emergency plan as an EAL threshold would be encompassed by this definition. The last sentence in this definition calls attention to the possibility that other regulatory change processes may be applicable. In the example above, the plant configuration change would likely be subject to the requirements of § 50.59 and a technical specification change may also be involved

nstrument relied upon in the emergency plan as an EAL threshold would be encompassed by this definition. The last sentence in this definition calls attention to the possibility that other regulatory change processes may be applicable. In the example above, the plant configuration change would likely be subject to the requirements of § 50.59 and a technical specification change may also be involved. (A discussion of this issue is also provided in Section II.B.5 of this document.)

The proposed § 50.54(q)(1)(ii) definition of “Emergency plan” would encompass any document that describes the programmatic methods that the licensee uses to maintain and perform emergency planning functions and to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Appendix E, and for nuclear power reactors, the planning standards of § 50.47(b). Under the proposed § 50.54(q), sub-tier documents, such as emergency plan implementing procedures, would not ordinarily be subject to the § 50.54(q) change process because these procedures generally only provide instructions in performing the programmatic methods identified and described in the emergency plan. This would be consistent with the current § 50.54(q) requirements. However, if a license were to relocate a programmatic description to another document, that description would remain subject to the proposed § 50.54(q) change process. For example, if a licensee were to relocate the details of its emergency classification scheme from the emergency plan to a wall chart posted in the control room, the wall chart would be subject to the proposed § 50.54(q) change process. The definition would also emphasize, by incorporation, the role of the licensee's original emergency plan approved by the NRC in minimizing the likelihood that a series of incremental changes over time will constitute a reduction in effectiveness of the original approved emergency plan

wall chart posted in the control room, the wall chart would be subject to the proposed § 50.54(q) change process. The definition would also emphasize, by incorporation, the role of the licensee's original emergency plan approved by the NRC in minimizing the likelihood that a series of incremental changes over time will constitute a reduction in effectiveness of the original approved emergency plan.

Proposed § 50.54(q)(1)(iii) would define the term “emergency planning function” in terms of a capability or resource necessary to prepare for and respond to a radiological emergency. During the development of the EP Cornerstone of the ROP, a group of EP subject matter experts, including NRC staff and nuclear power industry stakeholders, with input from the public, developed a series of planning standard functions that would be used in determining the significance of inspection findings. These planning standard functions are paraphrases of the broadly worded § 50.47(b) planning standards and the corresponding requirements in Appendix E to Part 50 in terms of the significant functions that need to be accomplished, or the capabilities that need to be in place, to maintain the effectiveness of a licensee's emergency plan and emergency response capability. Within the EP Cornerstone, the significance of inspection findings depends on whether the planning standards can be accomplished (i.e., loss of planning standard function) or can be accomplished only in a degraded manner (i.e., degraded planning standard function). The characterization of a reduction in effectiveness in the proposed rule would capitalize on this earlier effort in that any degradation or loss of a planning standard function would be deemed to constitute a reduction in effectiveness

ndards can be accomplished (i.e., loss of planning standard function) or can be accomplished only in a degraded manner (i.e., degraded planning standard function). The characterization of a reduction in effectiveness in the proposed rule would capitalize on this earlier effort in that any degradation or loss of a planning standard function would be deemed to constitute a reduction in effectiveness. The NRC is proposing to use the phrase “emergency planning function” in lieu of “planning standard function” as used in the ROP to allow the definition to be applicable to licensed facilities that are subject to Appendix E, but are not subject to the planning standards of § 50.47(b). The emergency planning functions would be established in regulatory guidance along with examples of typical emergency plan changes that would be expected to constitute a reduction in effectiveness and examples of changes that would not.

The emergency planning functions would not replace or supplement the regulations upon which they would be based and as such, compliance with these functions would not be required. They would be only used to differentiate between changes that the licensee would be allowed to make without prior NRC approval and those that would require prior NRC approval. The NRC would not establish these emergency planning functions in regulations because the underlying regulations already exist, and the expression of the emergency planning functions would differ between nuclear power reactors, non-power reactors, and fuel facilities licensed under Part 50 or Part 52. A draft regulatory guide that discusses these emergency planning functions for nuclear power reactors has been prepared and will be made available for public comment in conjunction with this proposed rule.

nning functions for nuclear power reactors has been prepared and will be made available for public comment in conjunction with this proposed rule.

Proposed § 50.54(q)(1)(iv) would define the term “reduction in effectiveness” as a change to the emergency plan that results in a reduction of the licensee's capability to perform an emergency planning function in the event of a radiological emergency. The phrase “reduction in effectiveness” would be an evaluation concept that would be used in proposed § 50.54(q) to differentiate between changes that the licensee would be allowed to make without prior NRC approval and those that would require prior NRC approval. A determination that a change may result in a reduction in effectiveness does not imply that the licensee could no longer implement its

Current regulations in Parts 50 and 52 require applicants for licenses to develop emergency plans that meet the requirements of Appendix E, and for nuclear power reactors, § 50.47(b), as applicable, during facility licensing. A holder of a license under Part 50 or a combined license under Part 52 after the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g) would be required by proposed § 50.54(q)(2) to follow and maintain the effectiveness of its emergency plan, as originally approved. The proposed § 50.54(q)(2) references to Appendix E and § 50.47(b), as applicable, would extend the applicability of these requirements as a condition of the facility license (as does the current language in § 50.54(q)). The NRC would expect licensees to identify conditions and situations which could reduce the effectiveness of its emergency plan, and to take corrective and/or compensatory actions to restore and maintain the requisite effectiveness

and § 50.47(b), as applicable, would extend the applicability of these requirements as a condition of the facility license (as does the current language in § 50.54(q)). The NRC would expect licensees to identify conditions and situations which could reduce the effectiveness of its emergency plan, and to take corrective and/or compensatory actions to restore and maintain the requisite effectiveness.

Proposed § 50.54(q)(3) would grant authority to the holder of a license to make changes to its emergency plan without prior NRC approval only if an analysis demonstrates that the changes do not reduce the effectiveness of the plan and the plan, as changed, continues to meet the requirements in Appendix E, and for nuclear power reactor licensees, § 50.47(b). The reference to Appendix E and § 50.47(b), as applicable, in this paragraph, would serve to exclude any change for which the licensee must request an exemption from requirements under § 50.12.

The NRC would expect a licensee considering a change under this section to perform an evaluation of the change to a level of rigor and thoroughness consistent with the scope of the proposed change. A licensee's analysis of the impact of a change on the effectiveness of the plan would need to consider the accidents included in the emergency planning basis, the licensing basis of the particular emergency plan, and any emergency plan elements implemented to address site-specific emergency response constraints (e.g., delay in staff augmentation associated with a remote site, commitments to State or local governments, existence of significant external hazards, etc.).

al governments, existence of significant external hazards, etc.).

Proposed § 50.54(q)(4) would define the process by which a licensee would request prior approval of a change to the emergency plan that the licensee has determined constitutes a reduction in effectiveness of the plan. Licensees pursuing these changes would be required to apply for an amendment to the license as provided in § 50.90. Courts have found that Commission actions that expand licensees' authority under their licenses without formally amending the licenses constitute license amendments and should be processed through the Commission's license amendment procedures. (See Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995); Sholly v. NRC, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ( per curiam ), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 1194 (1983); and in re Three Mile Island Alert, 771 F.2d 720, 729 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1082 (1986). See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-96-13, 44 NRC 315 (1996)). A proposed emergency plan change that would reduce the effectiveness of the plan would give the licensee a capability to operate at a level of effectiveness that was not previously authorized by the NRC. In this situation, the licensee's operating authority would be expanded beyond the authority granted by the NRC as reflected in the emergency plan without the proposed change. Thus, an emergency plan change that would reduce the effectiveness of the plan would expand the licensee's operating authority under its license. A change expanding the licensee's operating authority is, according to the courts, a license amendment and must be accomplished through a license amendment process

thority granted by the NRC as reflected in the emergency plan without the proposed change. Thus, an emergency plan change that would reduce the effectiveness of the plan would expand the licensee's operating authority under its license. A change expanding the licensee's operating authority is, according to the courts, a license amendment and must be accomplished through a license amendment process.

In addition to satisfying the filing requirements for a license amendment request in § 50.90 and § 50.91, the proposed § 50.54(q)(4) request would include all emergency plan pages affected by the change, a forwarding letter identifying the change, the reason for the change, and the basis for concluding that the licensee's emergency plan, as revised, will continue to meet the requirements of Appendix E, and for nuclear power reactor licensees, the planning standards of § 50.47(b). The NRC would review the amendment application to make its no significant hazards consideration determination and to determine if the emergency plan, as modified, is a reduction in effectiveness under § 50.54(q) and continues to meet the requirements in Appendix E, and for nuclear power reactors, the planning standards of § 50.47(b).

Proposed § 50.54(q)(5) would apply to all licensees subject to § 50.54(q) and require that licensees retain a record of all changes to the emergency plans made without prior NRC approval for a period of three years from the date of change. The section would also require the licensee to submit, as specified under § 50.4, a report of each such change, including its evaluation, within 30 days of the change. The NRC expects that the record of changes would include documentation of the evaluation that determined the change not to be a reduction in effectiveness. The NRC would use this record of changes during inspection oversight of the licensee's implementation of proposed § 50.54(q)(2)

it, as specified under § 50.4, a report of each such change, including its evaluation, within 30 days of the change. The NRC expects that the record of changes would include documentation of the evaluation that determined the change not to be a reduction in effectiveness. The NRC would use this record of ch

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.