[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19002-19007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9222]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150-AF20


Production and Utilization Facilities; Emergency Planning and 
Preparedness Exercise Requirements

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to revise 
its emergency planning regulations. The proposed rule would amend the 
current regulations governing domestic licensing of production and 
utilization facilities, as necessary, to facilitate greater flexibility 
in the licensee's emergency preparedness training activities during the 
``off-year'' for implementing the current requirement for annual 
exercise of the onsite emergency plan which is conducted to evaluate 
major portions of licensees' emergency response capabilities. The 
proposed amendment would preserve the existing requirement that each 
licensee, at each site, exercise biennially with full participation by 
States and local governments within the plume exposure pathway 
emergency planning zone (EPZ); would reduce from annual to biennial the 
required frequency of exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan 
(which may be included in the biennial full participation exercise); 
would require licensees to ensure that adequate emergency response 
capabilities are maintained during the interval between biennial 
exercises by conducting drills, including at least one drill involving 
a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the 
licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities; and would require 
licensees to continue enabling State and local governments in plume 
exposure pathway EPZs to participate in exercises and in drills in the 
interval between the biennial full participation exercises. By 
undertaking this rulemaking, the Commission would grant, in part, a 
petition for rulemaking submitted by Virginia Electric Power Company on 
December 9, 1992.

DATES: The comment period expires July 13, 1995. Comments received 
after this date will be considered if practical to do so, but only 
those comments received on or before this date can be assured of 
consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch. 
Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Maryland, between 7:45 
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may 
be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street 
NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
    Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or 
WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC 
Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The bulletin board may be 
accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly 
available communications software packages, or directly via Internet. 
Background documents on the rulemaking are also available, as 
practical, for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board.
    If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking 
subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll free 
number (800) 303-9672. Communication software parameters should be set 
as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1). 
Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem 
can then be accessed by selecting the ``Rules Menu'' option from the 
``NRC Main Menu.'' Users will find the ``FedWorld Online User's 
Guides'' particularly helpful. Many NRC subsystems and data bases also 
have a ``Help/Information Center'' option that is tailored to the 
particular subsystem.
    The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can also be accessed by a direct dial 
phone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339, or by using 
Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703) 321-3339 to contact 
FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld 
menu by selecting the ``Regulatory, Government Administration and State 
Systems,'' then selecting ``Regulatory Information Mall.'' At that 
point, a menu will be displayed that has an option ``U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission'' that will take you to the NRC Online main menu. 
The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing ``/go nrc'' 
at a FedWorld command line. If you access NRC from FedWorld's main 
menu, you may return to FedWorld by selecting the ``Return to 
FedWorld'' option from the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access 
NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full 
access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the main 
FedWorld system.
    If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and 
menus, including the Rules Menu. Although you will be able to download 
documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or 
upload files (comments). If you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files 
can be accessed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you 
will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look). 
An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with 
descriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP 
access. [[Page 19003]] 
    Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web, 
like FTP that mode only provides access for downloading files and does 
not display the NRC Rules Menu.
    For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, 
Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555, 
telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail AXD[email protected].
    Single copies of this proposed rulemaking may be obtained by 
written request or telefax ((301) 415-2260) from: Distribution 
Services, Printing and Mail Services Branch, Office of Administration, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Certain 
documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may 
be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower 
Level), Washington, DC. These same documents may also be viewed and 
downloaded electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established 
by NRC for this rulemaking as indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Regulation 
Development Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852 (301-415-6534).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking submitted by the 
Virginia Electric Power Company. The petition was assigned Docket No. 
PRM 50-58 on December 16, 1992. The petitioner has requested that the 
NRC amend Appendix E, Section IV, F.2., to 10 CFR Part 50, ``Emergency 
Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,'' 
to change the requirement that each site exercise its emergency plan 
biennially rather than annually. The petitioner's proposed amendment 
would require each licensee to conduct a biennial integrated exercise 
of the emergency plan at each site and to take actions necessary to 
ensure that its emergency response capability is maintained during the 
2-year interval. The petitioner believes that the annual graded 
exercise is but one of many indicators designed to provide reasonable 
assurance that actions can and will be taken during an emergency 
situation that will provide for the health and safety of the public.
    The petitioner quotes 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, F.2., 
which states that ``each licensee at each site shall annually exercise 
its emergency plan.''1 The petitioner contends that although not 
explicitly defined in the rule, this statement has been interpreted 
throughout the industry to require that each licensee at each site 
annually conduct an integrated exercise which will be evaluated by the 
NRC.

    \1\This quote does not reflect changes to the regulations that 
were made on March 25, 1994 (59 FR 14087), when the word ``onsite'' 
was added before the words ``emergency plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner states that regulations governing the frequency of 
State and local emergency planning exercises have been in place since 
1984. These regulations require a biennial exercise of State and local 
emergency plans. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the 
requirement for an annual integrated exercise for the onsite 
organization is inconsistent and should be clarified.
    The petitioner contends that emergency preparedness programs 
throughout the industry are designed to achieve and maintain an 
adequate level of emergency response capability. As defined by NUREG-
0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' a joint Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (NRC/FEMA) report published in November 
1980,2 an exercise is an event that tests the integrated 
capability and major portions of the basic elements existing within 
emergency preparedness plans and organizations. The petitioner 
contends, therefore, that an exercise is designed to merely confirm the 
level of response. As confirmation, an annual exercise is not necessary 
to achieve the underlying intent of the rule which is to attain an 
acceptable level of emergency preparedness. The petitioner further 
contends that because the annual exercise is the primary mechanism 
presently used by the NRC to evaluate readiness, the resources 
dedicated to this event are naturally more focused on exercise 
performance than on emergency preparedness. The petitioner states that 
because of the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program, the 
annual graded exercise merely represents a separate means for the NRC 
to evaluate the licensee's performance. The petitioner believes that 
the graded exercise has, in effect, become an end unto itself.

    \2\Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, 
Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the 
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/
or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. 
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the response of offsite response 
organizations during exercises performed over the past 8 years has 
demonstrated that a biennial frequency is sufficient to provide 
reasonable assurance of the health and safety of the public. During 
this time, there has been no indication of a need to increase the 
frequency of the demonstration. The petitioner states further that 
although it is recognized that the Commission retained the annual 
frequency requirement for licensees when it amended its regulations in 
1984 to allow State and local governments to participate in emergency 
preparedness exercises every 2 years, the request to amend 10 CFR part 
50 is implicitly supported by another part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. The petitioner contends that regulations issued by FEMA at 
44 CFR 350.9, by virtue of their stated requirements for offsite 
response organizations, recognize that, within the context of those 
regulations, the biennial conduct of an exercise is sufficient to 
demonstrate that protective measures can be taken in the event of an 
accident, thereby providing reasonable assurance of the health and 
safety of the public. The petitioner further contends that provisions 
for giving the States and local response organizations the opportunity 
to participate in the licensee's drill and exercise program could be 
easily accommodated independent of the petitioner's proposed rule 
change.
    The petitioner contends that technological advancements and 
applications have served to greatly enhance and automate accident 
assessment activities employed during an emergency response for both 
the licensee (through the use of Safety Parameter Display System and 
dose assessment computer models) and the Federal Government (through 
the use of the Emergency Response Data System and RASCAL, a computer 
dose assessment model). Improvements to equipment and facilities and 
programmatic enhancements within the nuclear emergency preparedness 
discipline over the past decade have elevated the level of response 
capability throughout the industry. As evidence, the petitioner refers 
to the results of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance 
(SALP) program, a mechanism employed by the NRC to assess, among other 
things, emergency preparedness indicators. The petitioner indicates 
that during the period between 1980 and 1992, the industry-averaged 
SALP rating for emergency [[Page 19004]] preparedness improved from 
2.29 to 1.26. The overall average for emergency preparedness SALP 
ratings for this 12-year period is 1.61.

The Petitioner

    The petitioner is a U.S. commercial nuclear power reactor licensee 
for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station, 
Units 1 and 2. The petitioner states that emergency planning 
regulations, promulgated as a result of the March 1979 accident at 
Three Mile Island, govern virtually all aspects of a licensee's 
emergency preparedness program and that they have done much to lay the 
basis for a structured formal response capability. The petitioner 
further states that maintenance and verification of emergency response 
capability are accomplished through the programs that ensure adequacy 
and effectiveness of plans, procedures, facilities, equipment, response 
personnel, and performance demonstrations. The petitioner focuses the 
petition on the need to conduct an annual exercise to ensure the 
adequacy of the emergency response capability. The petition is based on 
the petitioner's belief that the annual exercise is only one of many 
indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can 
and will be taken during an emergency situation that will protect the 
health and safety of the public.
    The petitioner believes that the proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 
50 would do nothing to undermine the provisions already in place for 
ensuring that identified deficiencies resulting from the conduct of 
exercise are corrected.

Need for the Suggested Amendments

    The petitioner contends the current annual testing requirement of a 
licensee's emergency response capability exceeds the threshold needed 
for determining the adequacy of the level of response. Therefore, the 
adoption of a biennial demonstration frequency would allow an increase 
in cost efficiency for industry and the Federal Government. Emergency 
preparedness exercises conducted in 1990 and 1991 have averaged a total 
of approximately $20,000 per inspection in NRC fees for the Virginia 
Electric and Power Company. The petitioner estimates that each exercise 
costs approximately $200,000 in resource commitments for the company. 
The approximately 450 personnel required for each exercise could be 
more effectively utilized in their normal function rather than by 
participating in an unneeded test of response capability.
    Furthermore, the petitioner states that, based on experience, 
approximately 750 staff hours are expended during the development of an 
exercise scenario. Emergency planning resources, therefore, could be 
more effectively applied to the development and maintenance of 
emergency preparedness activities rather than being absorbed by 
exercise demonstration activities, such as exercise scenario 
development, controller organization preparations, organization impacts 
and facility availability (e.g., control room simulator time).
    The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is 
resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety.

The Petitioner's Suggested Solution

    The petitioner requests the NRC amend its regulations governing 
domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, as 
necessary, to require that each licensee exercise its emergency plan 
for each site biennially rather than annually and to otherwise ensure 
that its emergency response capability is maintained during the 2-year 
interval. The petitioner requests that the NRC modify the existing 
regulation to provide greater clarification by explicitly defining the 
requirement.

The Petitioner's Suggested Amendments

    Petitioner requests that the NRC:
    1. Amend Section IV, Paragraph F.2., of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 
50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' to 
read as follows: ``Each licensee at each site shall conduct an 
integrated exercise every 2 years. The licensee shall take actions 
necessary to ensure the emergency response capabilities are maintained 
during the 2-year interval.''
    2. Amend Section IV, Paragraph F.3.(f), of Appendix E to 10 CFR 
Part 50 to read as follows: ``Licensees shall enable any State or local 
government located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate 
in exercises when requested by such State or local government.''
    3. Revise Section IV, Paragraph F.2., of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 
50 to provide greater clarification regardless of any action taken to 
amend the existing rule. Although not explicitly defined in the 
regulation, it has been interpreted throughout the industry that the 
regulation requires each licensee to annually conduct an integrated 
exercise at each site that will be evaluated by the NRC.

Public Comments

    A notice of filing of the petition, Docket No. PRM-50-58, was 
published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1993 (58 FR 12341). 
Public comments were requested by May 3, 1993. A total of 32 comment 
letters were received, of which 17 utilities, 5 State emergency 
management agencies and NUMARC supported the petition; while 7 State 
emergency management agencies, FEMA, and an environmental group opposed 
the petition.
    Support of the petition for rulemaking could generally be 
characterized by the following public comments:

    * * * an annual, graded NRC exercise is but one of many 
indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can 
be taken in the case of an emergency that are effective to protect 
the health and safety of the public.
    * * * Power reactor licensee effectiveness in emergency planning 
has improved steadily to the point where annual observed exercises 
no longer provide a significant benefit let alone a benefit 
commensurate with their cost in dollars and diverted resources.
    * * * Based on plant management's commitment to emergency 
preparedness * * * it is believed that biennial exercising is a 
sufficient frequency for determining the adequacy of a licensee's 
level of performance. It is well realized that a licensee cannot 
ignore emergency preparedness for 20 months and then train and fix 
facilities and procedures within 4 months in preparation for an 
exercise. Emergency preparedness' complex infrastructure demands a 
continual evaluation and maintenance program. Changing to biennial 
exercising should not lessen the high level of emergency 
preparedness * * *
    As an alternate to NRC observation of an annual exercise to 
assess a licensee's response capability, the NRC can utilize the 
resident inspector during periodic drills to determine if the 
licensee's program is effective * * * Annual exercises are typically 
constructed to demonstrate everything * * * we are actually 
reinforcing the belief by State and local governments that every 
emergency at a nuclear power plant will go to general emergency 
(required for most annual exercises).

    Opposition to the petition for rulemaking could also generally be 
characterized by the following public comments:

    * * * the exercise is not simply an indicator for NRC evaluation 
of the level of emergency preparedness, but also serves as training 
and practice for maintaining skills * * * There may be sufficient 
turnover or reassignment of plant personnel that two years between 
exercises is too long.
    Currently, many nuclear utilities are going through a period of 
`streamlining' their organizations * * * there will be changes in 
utility personnel with assignments as accident responders. A two-
year integrated emergency exercise will not allow personnel 
sufficient training in a new role. [[Page 19005]] 
    Regardless of the individual and collective levels of 
proficiency or technical sophistication, we still find exercises 
useful in identifying planning, training, or resource needs. In the 
past, we have often used utility-only and partial-scale exercises to 
train new personnel, test new facilities, or strengthen our 
relationship with our nuclear utilities and other agencies. Given 
the importance of preparedness to overall nuclear safety, we do not 
believe that annual utility exercises pose an excessive burden. 
Relaxation of the current requirement is therefore not necessary and 
should be denied.

    Additionally, FEMA's opposition to the petition in rulemaking 
focused on the following points:

    The proposed relaxation of the annual exercise requirement to a 
biennial frequency should be carefully analyzed to address any 
diminution in preparedness that might occur either to onsite or 
offsite programs. Our experience in the Radiological Emergency 
Preparedness (REP) Program over the last ten years has shown the 
great importance of the biennial, FEMA-graded, REP exercises in 
achieving meaningful, measurable preparedness for offsite 
jurisdictions around nuclear power plants. However, although State 
and local emergency plans are meant to minimize health and safety 
risks to the public should a radiological accident affect offsite 
areas, the licensee's onsite emergency plans are designed not only 
to prevent a radiological accident from occurring, but to serve as 
the ``first line of defense'' to prevent the accident from posing 
offsite health and safety effects.
    FEMA disagrees with VEPCO's characterization of the present 
annual onsite exercise requirement as being of marginal importance 
to safety. A licensee's onsite emergency preparedness is critical 
for protecting the public's health and safety, and we believe that 
the evaluation of a licensee's performance during annual onsite 
exercises is the most effective way to measure the level of a 
licensee's preparedness to respond to an emergency situation.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

    The petitioner characterizes the present requirement as one that is 
resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety. The petitioner 
has identified a number of issues associated with the current 
requirement to conduct an emergency plan exercise annually as grounds 
for change. The issues presented by the petitioner are as follows:
    (1) The requirement to conduct an integrated annual exercise is not 
clearly defined. Therefore the regulation should be clarified.
    (2) The existing regulation, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is 
inconsistent with other regulations that govern the frequency of 
offsite response organization integrated exercises (i.e., 44 CFR Part 
350).
    (3) The performance of offsite response organizations during 
biennial exercises has confirmed that a biennial frequency is 
sufficient to provide the reasonable assurance finding.
    (4) The existing regulation, 10 CFR 50.54(t), provides for an 
independent review of the adequacy of program implementation.
    (5) The existing requirement to conduct an annual exercise is not 
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. A biennial 
exercise is sufficient to provide an acceptable formal confirmation of 
capability.
    (6) Reconsideration of the requirement is warranted in light of the 
completion and implementation of enhanced emergency preparedness 
facilities, the current level of industry proficiency and performance, 
and the increased industry sensitivity to emergency preparedness.
    (7) Personnel could be more effectively utilized in their normal 
professional function rather than by participating in a resource-
intensive integrated test that only serves to confirm the already 
existing level of the response capability.
    (8) Emergency planning resources could be more effectively utilized 
to further the development and maintenance of emergency preparedness 
activities.

Commission Response

    The Commission believes that it is important, in light of the 
discussion provided in the petition, to make clearer NRC's intent 
(under the existing rule) that licensees need not conduct annual 
exercises employing scenarios that progress to severe core damage and/
or result in offsite releases. Historically, these scenarios were used 
in both the biennial full participation exercise of off-site emergency 
plans and the annual exercise of the licensee's onsite emergency plan. 
However, this is no longer necessary for the currently required annual 
exercises of the licensee's onsite emergency plan. Information Notice 
(IN) 87-54, ``Emergency Response Exercises,'' was issued to clarify NRC 
intent in this regard and to provide detailed guidance, specifically on 
the types of ``off-year'' training activities that licensees could 
perform during the interval between the biennial full participation 
exercises to maintain adequate EP response capabilities and satisfy the 
rule.
    Some licensees have availed themselves of the flexibility afforded 
by the IN guidance to conduct realistic, interactive ``off-year'' 
training activities that simulate less severe events, such as a minor 
fire, loss of electric power, and equipment failure, and focus on the 
capability of the onsite emergency response organization to diagnose 
problems and develop actions to successfully mitigate the scenario 
event. However, as noted in the petition, many licensees continue to 
employ severe scenarios in annual exercises of their onsite emergency 
plans.
    Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to modify Section 
IV.F.2.b. of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, to reduce from annual to 
biennial the required frequency of exercise of the onsite emergency 
plan (which may be included in the biennial full participation exercise 
specified in IV.F.2.c.), and to require that licensees conduct training 
drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of 
the principal functional areas of the licensee's onsite emergency 
response capabilities, during the interval between biennial full 
participation exercises to ensure that adequate emergency response 
capabilities are maintained. The principal functional areas of 
emergency response include activities such as management and 
coordination of emergency response, accident assessment, protective 
action decisionmaking, and plant system repair and corrective actions.
    This approach is consistent with a comment from one State that was 
not opposed to the petition but would prefer that some guidelines be 
included in Appendix E requiring plant specific internal exercises 
during the ``off year'' to ensure plant personnel familiarity with 
their response plans rather than the vague expectancy that this 
activity will be done. Furthermore, licensees would continue to enable 
State and local governments in the plume exposure pathway EPZs to 
participate in drills in the interval between exercises, thus 
preserving their training opportunities.
    In response to FEMA's opposition to this petition for rulemaking, 
the Commission notes that although the existing requirements relating 
to licensees' off-year EP activities are being modified (most 
noticeably by eliminating the need for a full formal exercise of the 
licensee's onsite emergency plan in the ``off-years''), the Commission 
is confident that there is no diminution of preparedness or increase in 
risk to the public. Licensees are specifically required under the 
proposed rule to maintain adequate emergency response capabilities 
between the biennial full participation exercises, and will now be 
conducting realistic drills, including at least one drill involving a 
combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's 
onsite emergency response [[Page 19006]] capabilities, during that 
interval. The principal functional areas of emergency response include 
activities such as management and coordination of emergency response, 
accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system 
repair and corrective actions.
    The Commission believes that the proposed changes may result in the 
reallocation and more effective utilization of resources within some 
licensees' EP programs in order to further the development and 
maintenance of emergency preparedness capabilities during the ``off-
year'' periods. It is not clear, however, that these changes will 
result in significant overall cost savings. The Commission cautions 
specifically against expectations that the proposed changes will 
necessarily result in significant reductions in NRC inspection activity 
directed to observation and evaluation of licensees' off-year EP 
maintenance activities, because they may be modified under the new 
rule. Also, licensees will, upon request, submit scenarios for NRC 
review in support of future inspections as may be deemed necessary by 
NRC.

Summary

    After considering the arguments presented by the petitioners and 
evaluating all public comments received, and based on the further 
understanding of the issues involved gained from 13 years of experience 
evaluating licensee emergency preparedness exercises, the Commission 
concludes that:
    (1) The required frequency for full formal exercise of the 
licensee's onsite emergency plan should be reduced from annual to 
biennial;
    (2) The means by which licensees are expected to train and maintain 
their emergency response capabilities and readiness in the 2-year 
interval between evaluated exercises should be changed by requiring 
licensees to conduct drills, including at least one drill involving a 
combination of some of the principal functional areas of the licensee's 
onsite emergency response capabilities; and
    (3) Opportunities for training by State and local governments 
should be preserved.
    The principal functional areas of emergency response include 
activities such as management and coordination of emergency response, 
accident assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system 
repair and corrective actions.
    During the specified drills, activation of all of the licensee's 
emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, and EOF) would not be 
necessary, licensees would have the opportunity to consider accident 
management strategies, supervised instruction would be permitted, 
operating staff would have the opportunity to resolve problems (success 
paths) rather than have controllers intervene, and the drills could 
focus on onsite training objectives.
    The proposed revisions would relieve licensees from the current 
requirement to conduct annually a full formal exercise of the 
licensee's onsite emergency plan, and make clear that licensees have 
flexibility in choosing the activities that are to be conducted in the 
2-year period between biennial full-participation exercises in order to 
maintain their emergency response capabilities. Greater flexibility in 
the training of the onsite emergency response organization could 
provide significant benefits to some licensees. For example, licensees 
could eliminate the practice of developing scenarios that proceed to 
severe core damage, offsite releases, or to higher emergency 
classification levels. Licensees would have greater opportunity to 
conduct realistic emergency response training with supervised 
instruction that allowed the operating staff to consider accident 
management strategies, diagnose problems and be given credit for 
actions that would mitigate scenario events (e.g., ``success paths'').
    This approach is also responsive to comments from FEMA, some 
States, and others who expressed concern about possible decreased 
licensee training and readiness in the period between biennial 
exercises. Under the proposed approach, licensees will still be 
required to conduct emergency response training and drills of the 
onsite emergency response organization, and to provide training 
opportunities to State and local government personnel during the 
interval between biennial exercises.
    Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50.47 (a)(1) is being revised in order to 
correct a typographical error that appeared in the 1993 edition of 
Title 10, Parts 0 to 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Submission of Comments in Electronic Form

    Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original 
paper copy, a copy of the letter in electronic form on a 5.25 or 3.5 
inch computer diskette: IBM PC/DOS or MS/DOS format. Data files should 
be provided in WordPerfect format or unformatted ASCII code. The format 
and version should be identified on the diskette's external label.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The Commission has determined under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 
Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a 
major Federal action significantly affecting the qualify of the human 
environment; and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not 
required. The proposed rule would update and clarify the emergency 
planning regulations relating to exercises. It does not involve any 
modification to any plant or revise the need for or the standards for 
emergency plans. There is no adverse effect on the quality of the 
environment. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact on which this determination is based are available for 
inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower 
Level), Washington, DC 20037.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information 
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
(44 U.S.C 3501 et. seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget approval Number 3150-0011.

Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed 
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the 
alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available 
for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L St., NW (Lower 
Level), Washington, DC 20037. Single copies of the analysis may be 
obtained from Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 
Telephone: (301) 415-6534.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would update 
and clarify ambiguities in the emergency planning regulations relating 
to exercises. Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the 
definition of small business in Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 632), the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business 
Administration in 13 CFR Part 121, or the Commission's Size Standards 
published at 56 FR 56671 (November 6, 1991). As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), [[Page 19007]] the 
Commission hereby certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

Backfit Analysis

    The proposed changes are intended to clarify the intent of the 
existing rule and facilitate greater flexibility in licensees' conduct 
of off-year emergency response training activities; but this action 
does not seek to impose any new or increased requirements in this area. 
The proposed changes would permit, but not require, licensees to change 
their existing emergency plans and procedures to employ scenarios in 
off-year training or drills that do not go to severe core damage or 
result in offsite exposures. No backfitting is intended or approved in 
connection with this proposed rule change.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

    Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire 
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and 
reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to 
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 
FACILITIES

    1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 
83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

    2. In Sec. 50.47, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 50.47  Emergency plans.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no 
initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued 
unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance 
that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of 
a radiological emergency. No finding under this section is necessary 
for issuance of a renewed nuclear power reactor operating license.
* * * * *
    3. Appendix E to part 50 is amended by revising section IV.F., 
paragraphs 2.b., and e. to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 50--Emergency Planning and Preparedness for 
Production and Utilization Facilities
* * * * *
IV. Content of Emergency Plans
F. Training
    2. * * *
    b. Each licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of its 
onsite emergency plan every two years. The exercise may be included 
in the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph 
2.c. of the section. In addition, the licensee shall take actions 
necessary to ensure that adequate emergency response capabilities 
are maintained during the interval between biennial exercises by 
conducting drills, including at least one drill involving a 
combination of some of the principal functional areas of the 
licensee's onsite emergency response capabilities. The principal 
functional areas of emergency response include such activities as 
management and coordination of emergency response, accident 
assessment, protective action decisionmaking, and plant system 
repair and corrective actions. During these drills, activation of 
all of the licensee's emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, and 
EOF) would not be necessary, licensees would have the opportunity to 
consider accident management strategies, supervised instruction 
would be permitted, operating staff would have the opportunity to 
resolve problems (success paths) rather than have controllers 
intervene, and the drills could focus on onsite training objectives.
* * * * *
    e. Licensees shall enable any State or local government located 
within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in the 
licensee's drills when requested by such State or local government.
* * * * *
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April, 1995.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-9222 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P