[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 142 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43673-43681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18845]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[7590-01-P]
RIN 3150-AH00


Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and 
Utilization Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
its emergency planning regulations governing the domestic licensing of 
production and utilization facilities. The proposed rule would amend 
the current regulations as they relate to NRC approval of licensee 
changes to Emergency Action Levels (EALs) and exercise requirements for 
co-located licensees.

DATES: Submit comments October 7, 2003. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission 
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. 
Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH00) in the subject line 
of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in 
electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety 
on the NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal information will not be 
removed from your comments.
    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us 
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's 
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions 
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail 
[email protected].
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 
415-1966).
    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 
(301) 415-1101.
    Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be 
examined and copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be 
viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at 
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this 
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image 
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or 
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-3224. E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is proposing to make two 
changes to its emergency preparedness regulations contained in 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix E. The first proposed amendment relates to the NRC 
approval of licensee changes to Emergency Action Levels (EALs), 
paragraph IV.B and the second proposed amendment relates to exercise 
requirements for co-located licensees, paragraph IV.F.2. A discussion 
of each of these proposed revisions follows.
    NRC approval of licensee changes to EALs, 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 
E, Paragraph IV.B.
    EALs are part of a licensee's emergency plan. There appears to be 
an inconsistency in the emergency planning regulations regarding the 
NRC approval of nuclear power plant licensee changes to EALs. Section 
50.54(q) states that licensees may make changes to their emergency 
plans without Commission approval only if the changes ``do not decrease 
the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to 
meet the standards of Sec.  50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix 
E'' to 10 CFR part 50. By contrast, Appendix E states that ``EAL's 
shall be * * * approved by NRC.'' However, the current industry 
practice, in general, has been to make

[[Page 43674]]

revisions to EALs and to implement them without requesting NRC approval 
after determining that the changes do not reduce the effectiveness of 
the emergency plan, in accordance with Sec.  50.54(q). When the 
determination is made that a proposed change constitutes a decrease in 
effectiveness, licensees submit the changes to NRC for review and 
approval. If a change involves a major change to the EAL scheme, for 
example, changing from an EAL scheme based on NUREG-0654 guidance to an 
EAL scheme based on NUMARC/NESP-007 guidance, it has been the industry 
practice to seek NRC approval before implementing the change. The NRC 
has been aware of the industry practice and has not objected to it. The 
Commission believes that the current regulations are unclear and can be 
interpreted to require prior NRC approval for all changes to a 
licensee's EALs.
    The Commission believes that NRC review and approval of every EAL 
change is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance that EALs will 
continue to provide an acceptable level of safety. The Commission's 
regulatory review should be focused on EAL changes that are of 
sufficient significance that a safety review by the NRC is appropriate 
before the licensee may implement the change. The Commission believes 
that EAL changes which have the potential to reduce the effectiveness 
of the emergency plan are of sufficient regulatory significance that 
prior NRC review and approval is warranted. This proposed standard is 
the same standard that the current regulations provide for determining 
whether changes to emergency plans (except EALs) require NRC review and 
approval. As such, this regulatory threshold has a long history of 
successful application, and this standard should also be used for EAL 
changes. Based upon the NRC's inspections of emergency plans, including 
EAL changes the Commission believes that licensees have been, in 
general, making appropriate determinations regarding whether an EAL 
change may potentially reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plan 
and have the capability to continue to do so. Limiting the NRC's review 
and approval to EAL changes which may reduce the effectiveness of 
emergency plans will ensure adequate NRC oversight of licensee-
initiated EAL changes, while both increasing regulatory effectiveness 
(through use of a single consistent standard for evaluating all 
emergency plan changes) and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on 
licensees (who would not be required to submit for approval EAL changes 
that do not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan).
    The Commission believes a licensee proposal to convert from one EAL 
scheme (e.g., NUREG-0654-based) to another EAL scheme (e.g., NUMARC/
NESP-007-based) will always involve a potential reduction in 
effectiveness. While the new EAL scheme may, upon review, be determined 
by the NRC to provide an acceptable level of safety and be in 
compliance with applicable NRC requirements, the potential safety 
significance of a change from one EAL scheme to another is such that 
prior NRC review and approval is appropriate to ensure that there is 
reasonable assurance that the proposed EAL change will provide an 
acceptable level of safety or otherwise result in non-compliance with 
applicable Commission requirements on emergency preparedness.
    Accordingly, the Commission proposes to revise Appendix E to 10 CFR 
part 50 to provide that NRC approval of EAL changes would be necessary 
for all EAL changes that decrease the effectiveness of the emergency 
plan and for changing from one EAL scheme (e.g., NUREG-0654-based) to 
another EAL scheme (e.g., NUMARC/NESP-007-based).
    (2) Exercise Requirements for Co-Located Licensees, 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix E, Paragraph IV.F.
    A. Rulemaking addressing exercise requirements for co-located 
licensees. The emergency planning regulations were significantly 
upgraded in 1980 after the accident at Three Mile Island (45 FR 55402; 
August 19, 1980). The 1980 regulations required an annual exercise of 
the onsite and offsite emergency plans. In 1984, the regulations were 
amended to change the frequency of participation of State and local 
governmental authorities in nuclear power plant offsite exercises from 
annual to biennial (49 FR 27733; July 6, 1984). In 1996, the 
regulations were amended to change the frequency of exercising the 
licensees' onsite emergency plan from annual to biennial (61 FR 30129; 
June 14, 1996). 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E to part 50, Paragraph 
IV.F.2, currently provides that the ``offsite plans for each site shall 
be exercised biennially'' with the full (or partial) participation of 
each offsite authority having a role under the plans, and that ``each 
licensee at each site'' shall conduct an exercise of its onsite 
emergency plan every 2 years, an exercise that may be included in the 
full participation biennial exercise (emphasis added).\1\ Thus, 
Paragraph IV.F.2 is ambiguous about the emergency preparedness exercise 
requirements where multiple nuclear power plants, each licensed to 
different licensees, are co-located at the same site: whether each 
licensee must participate in a full-participation exercise of the off-
site plan every two years, or whether the licensees may alternate their 
participation such that a full-participation exercise is held every two 
years and each licensee (at a two-licensee site) participates in a 
full-participation exercise every four years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, IV.F.2, states:
    2. The plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of 
emergency preparedness exercises as follows: Exercises shall test 
the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and 
methods, test emergency equipment and communications networks, test 
the public notification system, and ensure that emergency 
organization personnel are familiar with their duties.
    a. * * *
    b. Each licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of its 
onsite emergency plan every 2 years. The exercise may be included in 
the full participation biennial exercise required by paragraph 2.c. 
of this section.* * *
    c. Offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially 
with full participation by each offsite authority having a role 
under the plan. Where the offsite authority has a role under a 
radiological response plan for more than one site, it shall fully 
participate in one exercise every two years and shall, at least, 
partially participate in other offsite plan exercises in this 
period. ``Full participation'' when used in conjunction with 
emergency preparedness exercises for a particular site means 
appropriate offsite local and State authorities and licensee 
personnel physically and actively take part in testing their 
integrated capability to adequately assess and respond to an 
accident at a commercial nuclear power plant. ``Full participation'' 
includes testing major observable portions of the onsite and offsite 
emergency plans and mobilization of state, local and licensee 
personnel and other resources in sufficient numbers to verify the 
capability to respond to the accident scenario. ``Partial 
participation'' when used in conjunction with emergency preparedness 
exercises for a particular site means appropriate offsite 
authorities shall actively take part in the exercise sufficient to 
test direction and control functions; i.e., (a) protective action 
decision making related to emergency action levels, and (b) 
communication capabilities among affected State and local 
authorities and the licensee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration of the language of the current regulation and 
the legislative history of the exercise requirements, the Commission 
believes that the ambiguity in the current regulation can be 
interpreted such that each nuclear power plant licensee co-located on 
the same site must participate in a full-participation offsite exercise 
every two years (and that each offsite authority is to participate on 
either a full or partial participation basis in each licensee's 
biennial offsite exercise). Upon consideration of the matter, the 
Commission believes that requiring each licensee on a co-located site 
to participate in a full-participation

[[Page 43675]]

exercise every two years, and for the offsite authorities to 
participate in each licensee's full-participation exercise is not 
necessary to provide reasonable assurance that each licensee and the 
offsite authorities will be able to fulfill their responsibilities 
under the emergency plan should the plan be required to be implemented. 
Furthermore, the Commission believes that such an interpretation could 
impose an undue regulatory burden on offsite authorities. Currently, 
there is only one nuclear power plant site with two power plants 
licensed to two separate licensees: the James A. FitzPatrick and Nine 
Mile Point site. Although the ambiguity in Paragraph IV.F.2 has limited 
impact today, the Commission understands that future nuclear power 
plant licensing concepts currently being considered by the industry 
include siting multiple nuclear power plants on a single site. These 
plants may be owned and/or operated by different licensees. Therefore, 
the Commission believes that this rulemaking is necessary to remove the 
ambiguity in Paragraph IV.F.2 and clearly specify the emergency 
preparedness training obligations of co-located licensees.
    The Commission proposes that where two nuclear power plants 
licensed to separate licensees are co-located on the same site, 
reasonable assurance of emergency preparedness exists where:
    (1) The co-located licensees would exercise their onsite plans 
biennially;
    (2) The offsite authorities would exercise their plans biennially;
    (3) The interface between offsite plans and each of the onsite 
plans would be exercised biennially in a full or partial participation 
exercise alternating between each licensee.
    Thus, each co-located licensee would participate in a full or 
partial participation exercise quadrennially. In addition, in the year 
when one of the co-located licensees is participating in a full or 
partial participation exercise, the proposed rule would require the 
other co-located licensees to participate in activities and interaction 
with offsite authorities. For the period between exercises the proposed 
rule would require the licensees to conduct emergency preparedness 
activities and interactions (A&I). The purpose of A&I would be to test 
and maintain interface functions among the affected State and local 
authorities and the licensees.
    The Commission concludes that biennial full or partial 
participation exercises for each co-located licensee is not warranted 
and that the proposed regulation would provide a sufficient level of 
assurance of emergency preparedness for the following reasons. First, 
the proposed rule is consistent with the current licensees' practice 
for the James A. Fitizpatrick/Nine Mile Point plants. This practice has 
been reviewed periodically by the NRC, the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), and the State of New York. NRC has continued to find 
that there is reasonable assurance that appropriate measures could be 
taken to protect the public health and safety in the event of a 
radiological emergency, based on NRC's assessment of the adequacy of 
the licensee's onsite Emergency Planning (EP) program, FEMA's 
assessment of the adequacy of the offsite EP program, and the current 
level of interaction between the onsite and offsite emergency response 
organizations in the period between full (or partial) participation 
exercises.
    Second, the central requirement of a ``partial participation'' 
exercise under the current regulations is to test the ``direction and 
control functions'' between the licensee and the offsite authorities 
(i.e., protective action decision making related to emergency action 
levels, and communications capabilities among affected State and local 
authorities and the licensee). See 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, 
Paragraph IV.F, footnote 5 of the current regulations. The proposed 
rule would contain a requirement that, in each of the three years 
between a licensee's participation in a full participation exercise, 
each licensee shall participate in activities and interactions (A&I) 
with offsite authorities to test and maintain interface functions. By 
requiring that the licensee's emergency preparedness organization 
engages in activities with offsite authorities to exercise and test 
effective communication and coordination, the proposed rule would 
provide the functional equivalent of a biennial exercise which tests 
the ``direction and control functions'' between the licensee and the 
offsite authorities. Id.
    Third, the burden of requiring each licensee to participate 
biennially in a full or partial participation exercise with offsite 
participation falls most heavily on the offsite authorities (i.e., the 
State and local authorities). The Commission's 1984 and 1996 
rulemakings were specifically intended to reduce the schedule for 
offsite exercises, to remove unnecessary burden on offsite authorities. 
However, the Commission did not explicitly address the unique 
circumstance of two plants located on a single site, with each plant 
owned by different licensees. This proposed rulemaking would address 
the undue burden placed upon offsite authorities in these 
circumstances.
    The proposed rule would define co-located licensees as licensees 
that share many of the following emergency planning and siting 
elements:
    a. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones,
    b. Offsite governmental authorities,
    c. Offsite emergency response organizations,
    d. Notification system, and/or
    e. Emergency facilities.
    The Commission requests public comments on whether the 
``alternating participation'' concept should be extended to the 
situation where three or more nuclear power plants are co-located at a 
single site. For example, if there were five nuclear power plants each 
owned by separate licensees, co-located on a single site, should the 
final rule include a provision which would require each licensee to 
participate in a full offsite exercise once every 10 years with co-
located licensees required to participate in activities and 
interactions with offsite authorities between exercises? If this is not 
considered appropriate, what alternative concept for the conduct of 
full-participation offsite exercises should the regulation specify?
    The Commission also requests public comment on the elements of the 
definition of ``co-located'' licensees.
    B. Proposed Guidance on Acceptable Emergency Planning Activities 
and Interactions for Co-Located Licensees. Currently, guidance on the 
conduct of training, including onsite and offsite exercises, is 
contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.101, ``Emergency Planning and 
Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors.'' The NRC intends to modify RG 
1.101 to set forth guidance on the conduct of exercises, and activities 
and interactions, to reflect the provisions of any final rule 
addressing co-located licensees, as part of the final rulemaking 
package. The substance of the proposed guidance to be set forth in the 
revised version of RG 1.101 is set forth below. The Commission requests 
public comment on the following guidance for co-located licensees:
    1. When one licensee hosts the two year full or partial 
participation exercise, the other licensee is involved in the following 
activities:
    a. Scenario preparation;
    b. Meetings with State, and local governmental personnel to develop 
extent of play document;
    c. Licensee to conduct training at Reception Centers, Congregate 
Care Centers, and County Emergency Operations Centers; and

[[Page 43676]]

    d. Provide controllers and observers for the full participation 
exercise.
    2. Provide for the staffing of the State and County Emergency 
Operations Centers (EOC) with dose assessment and communications 
personnel as well as the staffing of the Joint News Center (JNC).
    3. Hospital drills are conducted twice a year with alternating 
counties; if applicable.
    4. The Notification Process and the Emergency Action Level Scheme 
shall be exercised.
    5. Protective Action Recommendations (PAR) Methodology for the 10 
and 50-mile Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) and the Dose Assessment 
Methodology shall be exercised.
    6. Licensee/Offsite training:
    [sbull] Annual State County training (Examples: Reactor Systems, 
Dry Cask Storage, EALs).
    [sbull] Licensee provided Fire Service Training (County).
    [sbull] Licensee provided Ambulance Training (County).
    [sbull] Licensee provided Hospital Training (County).
    [sbull] Licensee provided Dose Assessment training, including dose 
assessment software (State and County).
    7. Licensee/Offsite Meetings and Conferences:
    [sbull] Quarterly Nuclear Safety Subcommittee (State and County).
    [sbull] Ad hoc meetings with County Emergency Management staff.
    [sbull] County and local government Emergency Planning Committee 
meetings.
    [sbull] Licensee security meetings with offsite law enforcement and 
U.S. Coast Guard.
    [sbull] Licensee assistance in the development of the County 
Emergency Planning public information booklet.
    8. Licensee/Offsite drills and exercises:
    [sbull] County and/or State partial participation in licensee 
quarterly drills and biennial exercises.
    [sbull] Participation in County/State FEMA evaluated drills.
    [sbull] Local fire department support during licensee on-site fire 
drills.
    [sbull] Licensee participation at Hospital drills.
    9. Licensee/Offsite support services:
    [sbull] Licensee support at local government Reception Center 
training and practice drills.
    [sbull] Licensee provides dosimeters and processing services to 
local government.
    [sbull] Licensee provide radiological instrument calibration 
services to local government.
    [sbull] Licensee support of local government during annual Public 
Notification System (PNS) system test.
    [sbull] Licensee provides use of weapons firing range to local and 
state law enforcement (Sheriff, State Police).
Paragraph-by-Paragraph Discussion of Changes to 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix E
    A. Paragraph IV. B--Assessment Actions. This paragraph would be 
amended by adding new language governing the type and scope of EAL 
changes that must receive NRC approval prior to implementation. The 
proposed amendment would clarify that NRC approval of EAL changes would 
be required for changes that decrease the effectiveness of the 
emergency plan or for changes to convert from one EAL scheme (e.g., 
NUREG-0654-based) to another EAL scheme (e.g., NUMARC/NESP-007-based). 
The proposed language would also clarify the existing requirement that 
applicants for initial reactor operating licenses and initial combined 
licenses (COL) must obtain NRC approval of initial proposed EALs.
    Language would be added to the last sentence of 10 CFR 50.54(q), to 
clearly state that EAL changes that are made without NRC review and 
approval, as well as licensee requests for review and approval of EAL 
changes under the proposed language, must be submitted in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec.  50.4. The Commission proposes to follow 
the current practice of approving EAL changes without the use of a 
license amendment.
    B. Paragraph IV.F.2.--Training. This paragraph would be amended to 
articulate the emergency planning exercise requirements for co-located 
licensees. Under the proposed amendment, co-located licensees would be 
required to exercise their onsite plans biennially. The offsite 
authorities would exercise their plans biennially. The interface 
between offsite plans and each of the onsite plans would be exercised 
biennially in a full or partial participation exercise alternating 
between each licensee. Thus, each co-located licensee would participate 
in a full or partial participation exercise quadrennially. In addition, 
in the year when one of the co-located licensees is participating in a 
full or partial participation exercise, the proposed rule requires the 
other co-located licensee to participate in activities and interactions 
with offsite authorities. For the period between exercises the proposed 
rule requires the licensee to conduct emergency preparedness activities 
and interactions (A&I). The purpose of A&I would be to test and 
maintain interface functions among the affected State and local 
authorities and the licensee. Table 1 provides a graphical description 
of one possible way of meeting the requirements of the proposed rule.

              Table 1.--Example of Emergency Preparedness Training for Two (2) Co-Located Licensees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Year                   1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8        9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee 1....................  X         A&I      A&I      A&I      X        A&I      A&I      A&I      X
Licensee 2....................  A&I       A&I      X        A&I      A&I      A&I      X        A&I      A&I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
X = Full or partial participation exercise.
A&I = Activities and interactions with offsite authorities.

    This paragraph would also be amended to provide a definition of co-
located licensees as licensees that share many of the following 
emergency planning and siting elements.
    a. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones,
    b. Offsite governmental authorities,
    c. Offsite emergency response organizations,
    d. Public notification system, and/or
    e. Emergency facilities.

Metric Policy

    On October 7, 1992, the Commission published its final Policy 
Statement on Metrication. According to that policy, after January 7, 
1993, all new regulations and major amendments to existing regulations 
were to be presented in dual units. The proposed amendments to the 
regulations contain no units.

Plain Language

    The Presidential memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' directed that the Government's writing 
be in plain language. This memorandum was

[[Page 43677]]

published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). In complying with this 
directive, editorial changes have been made in these proposed revisions 
to improve the organization and readability of the existing language of 
the paragraphs being revised. These types of changes are not discussed 
further in this document. The NRC requests comments on the proposed 
rule changes specifically with respect to the clarity of the language 
used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the ADDRESSES 
caption of the preamble.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical 
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with 
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. The proposed rulemaking 
addresses two matters: (1) The circumstances under which a licensee may 
modify an existing EAL without prior NRC review and approval; and (2) 
the nature and scheduling of emergency preparedness exercises for two 
different licensees of nuclear power plants which are co-located on the 
same site (co-located licensees). These are not matters which are 
appropriate for addressing in industry consensus standards, and have 
not been the subject of such standards. Accordingly, this proposed 
rulemaking is not within the purview of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113.

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission is proposing to amend its emergency preparedness 
regulations contained in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The first proposed 
revision relates to the NRC approval of changes to the EALs, Appendix E 
to 10 CFR part 50, paragraph IV.B. The second proposed revision relates 
to exercise requirements for co-located licensees (Appendix E, 
paragraph IV.F).

Need for the Action

    (1) NRC Approval of Changes to Emergency Action Levels. 10 CFR 
50.54(q) states that licensees may make changes to their emergency 
plans without Commission approval only if the changes ``do not decrease 
the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to 
meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix 
E'' to 10 CFR part 50. By contrast, Appendix E states that ``EAL's 
shall be * * * approved by NRC.'' The industry practice, in general, 
has been to revise EALs that do not reduce the effectiveness of the 
emergency plan and to implement them in accordance with Sec.  50.54(q), 
without requesting NRC approval. The Commission believes that the 
current regulations are unclear, and can be interpreted to require 
prior NRC approval for all licensee EAL changes. The Commission has 
determined that NRC approval of all EAL changes are not necessary to 
ensure an adequate level of safety. Thus, the current regulation 
imposes an unnecessary burden on licensees and the NRC.
    2. Exercise Requirements for Co-Located licensees, (paragraph 
IV.F.2.). 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, requires that the offsite 
emergency plans for each site shall be exercised biennially with the 
full (or partial) participation of each offsite authority having a role 
under the plans, and that each licensee at each site shall conduct an 
exercise of its onsite emergency plan every two years, an exercise that 
may be included in the full participation biennial exercise. Paragraph 
IV.F.2 is ambiguous about the emergency preparedness exercise 
requirements where multiple nuclear power plants, each licensed to 
different licensees, are co-located at the same site: whether each 
licensee must participate in a full-participation exercise of the off-
site plan every two years, or whether the licensees may alternate their 
participation such that a full-participation exercise is held every two 
years and each licensee (at a two-licensee site) participates in a 
full-participation exercise every four years.
    Upon consideration of the language of the current regulation and 
the legislative history of the exercise requirements, the Commission 
believes that the ambiguity in the current regulations can be 
interpreted that each nuclear power plant licensee co-located on the 
same site must participate in a full-participation offsite exercise 
every two years (and that each offsite authority is to participate on 
either a full or partial participation basis in licensee's biennial 
offsite exercise).
    The Commission believes that requiring each licensee on a co-
located site to participate in a full-participation exercise every two 
years, and for the offsite authorities to participate in each 
licensee's full-participation exercise is not necessary to provide 
reasonable assurance that each licensee and the offsite authorities 
will be able to fulfill their responsibilities under the emergency plan 
should the plan be required to be implemented. Furthermore, the 
Commission believes that this interpretation could impose an undue 
regulatory burden on offsite authorities. Therefore, the Commission 
believes that rulemaking is necessary to make clear that each co-
located licensee need not participate in a full-participation offsite 
exercise every two years.
    The Commission proposes that where two nuclear power plants 
licensed to separate licensees are co-located on the same site, 
reasonable assurance of emergency preparedness exists where; (1) The 
co-located licensees would exercise their onsite plans biennially; (2) 
The offsite authorities would exercise their plans biennially; and (3) 
The interface between offsite plans and each of the onsite plans would 
be exercised biennially in a full or partial participation exercise 
alternating between each licensee.
    Thus, each co-located licensee would participate in a full or 
partial participation exercise quadrennially. In addition, in the year 
when one of the co-located licensees is participating in a full or 
partial participation exercise, the proposed rule would require the 
other co-located licensees to participate in activities and interaction 
with offsite authorities. For the period between exercises the proposed 
rule would require the licensees to conduct emergency preparedness 
activities and interactions. The purpose of A&I would be to test and 
maintain interface functions among the affected State and local 
authorities and the licensees.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Actions

    The NRC believes that the environmental impact for the proposed 
rule is negligible. The proposed rule would not require any changes to 
the design, or the structures, systems and components of any nuclear 
power plant. Nor would the proposed rule require any changes to 
licensee programs and procedures for actual operation of nuclear power 
plants. Thus, there would be no change in radiation dose to any member 
of the public which may be attributed to the proposed rule, nor will 
there be any changes in occupational exposures to workers. Furthermore, 
the proposed rule will not result in any changes that would increase or 
change the nature of nonradiological effluents from nuclear power 
plants.

Alternative to the Proposed Actions

    The alternative to the proposed action is to not revise the 
regulations (i.e., the no action alternative). No environmental impacts 
are associated with the no action alternative.

[[Page 43678]]

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    Cognizant personal from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 
New York State (for the co-located licensee part of the rule change), 
were consulted as part of this rulemaking activity.

Finding of No Significant 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 the proposed amendments are not major 
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human 
environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not 
required. These amendments would revise the emergency planning 
regulations to be consistent with current staff and licensee practices. 
Comments on any aspect of the environmental assessment may be submitted 
to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This proposed rule increases the burden on co-located licensees to 
log activities and interactions with offsite agencies during the years 
that full or partial participation emergency preparedness exercises are 
not conducted and to prepare a one-time change to procedures to reflect 
the revised exercises requirements. The public burden for this 
information is estimated to average 30 hours per year. Because the 
burden for this information collection is insignificant, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required. Existing 
requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, 
approval number 3150-0011.

Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a request for information or an information collection 
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid 
OMB control number.

Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis for the proposed 
amendments. This analysis examines the costs and benefits of the 
alternatives considered by the Commission. The regulatory analysis is 
provided below and is also available for inspection in the NRC Public 
Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 01-
F21, Rockville, Maryland. Single copies of the analysis are available 
as indicated in the ADDRESSES heading.

I. Statement of Problem and Objectives

    The Commission is proposing to make two changes to its emergency 
preparedness regulations contained in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The 
first proposed amendment relates to the NRC approval of licensee 
changes to Emergency Action Levels, paragraph IV.B and the second 
proposed amendment relates to exercise requirements for co-located 
licensees, paragraph IV.F.2. A discussion of each of these proposed 
revisions follows.
    (1) NRC approval of licensee changes to Emergency Action Levels, 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B. EALs are part of a licensee's 
emergency plan. There appears to be an inconsistency in the emergency 
planning regulations regarding the NRC approval of nuclear power plant 
licensee changes to emergency action levels. Sec.  50.54(q) states that 
licensees may make changes to their emergency plans without Commission 
approval only if the changes ``do not decrease the effectiveness of the 
plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of 10 
CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E'' to 10 CFR part 50. By 
contrast, Appendix E states that ``EAL's shall be * * * approved by 
NRC.'' However, the current industry practice, in general, has been to 
make revisions to EALs and to implement them without requesting NRC 
approval, after determining that the changes do not reduce the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan in accordance with Sec.  50.54(q). 
When the determination is made that a proposed change constitutes a 
decrease in effectiveness, licensees submit the changes to NRC for 
review and approval. If a change involves a major change to the EAL 
scheme, for example, changing from an EAL scheme based on NUREG-0654 
guidance to an EAL scheme based on NUMARC/NESP-007 guidance, it has 
been the industry practice to seek NRC approval before implementing the 
change. The NRC has been aware of the industry practice and has not 
objected to it. The Commission believes that the current regulations 
are unclear and can be interpreted to require prior NRC approval for 
all changes to a licensee's EALs.
    (2) Exercise Requirements for Co-Located Licensees, 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix E, Paragraph IV.F. The emergency planning regulations were 
significantly upgraded in 1980 after the accident at Three Mile Island 
(45 FR 55402; August 19, 1980). The 1980 regulations required an annual 
exercise of the onsite and offsite emergency plans. In 1984, the 
regulations were amended to change the frequency of participation of 
State and local governmental authorities in nuclear power plant offsite 
exercises from annual to biennial (49 FR 27733; July 6, 1984). In 1996, 
the regulations were amended to change the frequency of exercising the 
licensees' onsite emergency plan from annual to biennial (61 FR 30129; 
June 14, 1996). Appendix E, to 10 CFR part 50, Paragraph IV.F.2, 
currently provides that the ``offsite plans for each site shall be 
exercised biennially'' with the full (or partial) participation of each 
offsite authority having a role under the plans, and that ``each 
licensee at each site'' shall conduct an exercise of its onsite 
emergency plan every two years, an exercise that may be included in the 
full participation biennial exercise (emphasis added). Thus, Paragraph 
IV.F.2 is ambiguous about the emergency preparedness exercise 
requirements where multiple nuclear power plants, each licensed to 
different licensees, are co-located at the same site: whether each 
licensee must participate in a full-participation exercise of the off-
site plan every two years, or whether the licensees may alternate their 
participation such that a full-participation exercise is held every two 
years and each licensee (at a two-licensee site) participates in a 
full-participation exercise every four years.
    Upon consideration of the language of the current regulation, and 
the legislative history of the exercise requirements, the Commission 
believes that the ambiguity in the current regulations can be 
interpreted that each nuclear power plant licensee co-located on the 
same site must participate in a full-participation offsite exercise 
every two years (and that each offsite authority is to participate on 
either a full or partial participation basis in each licensee's 
biennial offsite exercise). Upon consideration of the matter, the 
Commission believes that requiring each licensee on a co-located site 
to participate in a full-participation exercise every two years, and 
for the offsite authorities to participate in each licensee's full-
participation exercise is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance 
that each licensee and the offsite authorities will be able to fulfill 
their responsibilities under the emergency plan should the plan be 
required to be implemented. Furthermore, the Commission believes that 
this interpretation could impose an undue regulatory burden on offsite 
authorities. Currently, there is only one nuclear power plant site with 
two

[[Page 43679]]

power plants licensed to two separate licensees: The James A. 
FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point site. Although the ambiguity in 
Paragraph IV.F.2 has limited impact today, the Commission understands 
that future nuclear power plant licensing concepts currently being 
considered by the industry include siting multiple nuclear power plants 
on a single site. These plants may be owned and/or operated by 
different licensees. Therefore, the Commission believes that this 
rulemaking is necessary to remove the ambiguity in Paragraph IV.F.2 and 
clearly specify the emergency preparedness training obligations of co-
located licensees.
    The Commission proposes that where two nuclear power plants 
licensed to separate licensees are co-located on the same site, 
reasonable assurance of emergency preparedness exists where: (1) The 
co-located licensees would exercise their onsite plans biennially; (2) 
The offsite authorities would exercise their plans biennially; and (3) 
The interface between offsite plans and each of the onsite plans would 
be exercised biennially in a full or partial participation exercise 
alternating between each licensee.
    Thus, each co-located licensee would participate in a full or 
partial participation exercise quadrennially. In addition, in the year 
when one of the co-located licensees is participating in a full or 
partial participation exercise, the proposed rule would require the 
other co-located licensees to participate in activities and interaction 
with offsite authorities. For the period between exercises the proposed 
rule would require the licensees to conduct emergency preparedness 
activities and interactions. The purpose of A&I would be to test and 
maintain interface functions among the affected State and local 
authorities and the licensees.
    The proposed rule defines co-located licensees as licensees that 
share many of the following emergency planning and siting elements.
    a. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones,
    b. Offsite governmental authorities,
    c. Offsite emergency response organizations,
    d. Public notification system, and/or
    e. Emergency facilities.

II. Background

    (1) Emergency Action Levels (paragraph IV.B). EALs are thresholds 
of plant parameters (such as containment pressure and radiation levels) 
used to classify events at nuclear power plants into one of four 
emergency classes (Notification of Unusual Event, Alert, Site Area 
Emergency, or General Emergency). EALs are required by Appendix E to 10 
CFR part 50 and Sec.  50.47(b)(4), and are contained in licensees' 
emergency plans and emergency plan implementing procedures.
    Section 50.54(q) states that licensees can make changes to their 
emergency plans without Commission approval only if the changes ``do 
not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, 
continue to meet the standards of Sec.  50.47(b) and the requirements 
of Appendix E'' to 10 CFR part 50. However, Appendix E to 10 CFR part 
50 states that ``EALs shall be discussed and agreed on by the applicant 
and State and local governmental authorities and approved by NRC.'' 
Because EALs are required to be included in the emergency plan, the 
issue is whether changes to EALs incorporated into the emergency plan 
are subject to the change requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(q), or to the 
more restrictive requirement in Appendix E.
    (2) Exercise Requirements for Co-Located Licensees (paragraph 
IV.F.2). The NRC's current regulations contained in Appendix E, to 10 
CFR part 50, require that the offsite emergency plans for each site 
shall be exercised biennially with the full (or partial) participation 
of each offsite authority having a role under the plans, and that each 
licensee at each site shall conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency 
plan every two years, an exercise that may be included in the full 
participation biennial exercise. This exercise requirement, though 
straight forward on its face, has implementation and compliance 
problems when two licensees occupy the same site thereby requiring the 
same state to conduct a full participation exercise with each co-
located licensee every year.
    There is currently only one site with two licensees, Nine Mile 
Point and James A. FitzPatrick site. However, the current trend in the 
nuclear industry is to locate new plants on currently approved sites, 
possibly with different licenses, thus the need for this proposed rule 
change.

III. Rulemaking Options for Both Amendments

    Option 1--revise the regulations to reflect current staff and 
licensee practices.
    Option 2--not to revise the regulations.

IV. Alternatives

Impact(s)
    Option 1 for the EAL revisions would amend the existing regulations 
to eliminate the inconsistency between the requirements of Appendix E 
and Sec.  50.54(q) relating to approval of changes to EALs and reflect 
current staff and licensee practice. This would be done by amending 
Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, to require NRC to review for approval new 
EAL schemes or revisions to EALs that diminish the effectiveness of the 
emergency plans (Sec.  50.54(q) criteria). The rulemaking would provide 
a means for licensees to improve their EALs while reducing unnecessary 
regulatory burden. Once the rule is revised, licensees could make EAL 
changes that do not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan 
without prior NRC approval. This approach would reduce the unnecessary 
regulatory burden on licensees.
    Option 2 for EAL changes would retain the inconsistency in the 
regulations, thereby increasing the unnecessary burden on licensees and 
the NRC staff in addressing questions on a case-by-case basis.
    Option 1 for co-located licensees would maintain safety because EP 
exercises would continue to be required at the frequency which has 
provided reasonable assurance that the emergency plans can be 
implemented. The impact of Option 1 on the resources of licensees and 
offsite authorities would be minimal. Option 1 would reflect what 
licensees are currently doing and, therefore, there would not be a 
change in existing acceptable practices. Clarification of the 
regulatory requirements would modify wording that has resulted in 
ambiguous understanding of the requirements. This option would require 
NRC resources to conduct the rulemaking. The activities and 
interactions that would test and maintain interface functions for co-
located licensees and offsite authorities in the period between 
exercises (outlined in this proposed rule) will provide a consistent 
expectation and basis for such activities. The level of activities and 
interactions adequate to maintain an appropriate level of preparedness 
would be ensured.
    The impact of the no rulemaking option (option 2) for the co-
located licensee exercise revision on the resources of staff, licensees 
and offsite authorities would be minimal. However, without 
clarification of the regulatory requirements, there would be the 
continued ambiguity in the requirements for future licensee situations. 
The impact of these continued ambiguities is that potential confusion 
over requirements would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis by 
the staff. This option would not

[[Page 43680]]

require NRC resources for conducting a rulemaking.

V. Estimation and Evaluation of Values and Impacts

    The proposed amendments would modify current requirements in the 
NRC's approval of changes to Emergency Action Levels (EALs) and the 
participation in emergency preparedness exercises for co-located 
licensees. The change in the requirement for NRC approval of EALs is 
being made solely for consistency, and that because it reflects current 
practice, as well as the Commission's original intent it does not 
impose a burden on licensees. However, the second change does modify 
the information collection requirements and impacts future co-located 
licensee burden. Current co-located licensees have implemented an 
emergency planning training regime consistent with the proposed rule.
    The proposed amendment would require that future co-located 
licensees incorporate in their emergency planning procedures that each 
co-located licensee would hold a full participation emergency 
preparedness exercise with the offsite agencies once every four years. 
In addition, the licensee that does not conduct the full participation 
exercise with the offsite agencies will conduct a partial participation 
exercise with the offsite agencies every two years. Likewise each co-
located licensee would log the activities and interactions with offsite 
authorities that are also conducted in the period between exercises. 
This proposed rule does not increase the burden on current co-located 
licensees because they have an emergency planning training regime 
consistent with the proposed rule. Future co-located licensees would 
keep a log of the activities and interactions with offsite authorities 
which is estimated to average 30 hour(s) per co-located licensee per 
year.

VI. Presentation of Results

    As noted, the impact on a co-located licensee to implement the 
proposed rule change is a modest 30 hour(s) per year per co-located 
licensee. This time would be used to maintain a log of the activities 
and interactions with offsite authorities. At an assumed average hourly 
rate of $156/hour, the total industry implementation cost is estimated 
at $9,360. The cost for an individual co-located licensee is $4,680 per 
year.
    With respect to the EAL rule change, licensees would save staff 
time by having explicit NRC requirements and guidance that should 
assist the licensees in the proper submittal of EAL changes. The impact 
of improved regulations on the NRC is a decrease in the amount of staff 
time needed to approve license EAL changes. This is estimated to be 
about a 100 staff-hour reduction or a $8,000 savings to the NRC per 
year (assuming a $80 hourly rate for NRC staff time). However, it is 
uncertain as to how many EAL changes might have been received by the 
NRC for review and approval.
    There would be several additional benefits associated with these 
amendments. The greatest would be the increased assurance that the 
Commissions regulations are consistent and not ambiguous. Further, by 
addressing these issues generically, through rulemaking, rather than 
continuing the current case-by-case approach, it is expected that the 
burden on the NRC staff would be reduced by several hours for each 
license EAL change as well as future co-located licensee's exercise 
requirements that NRC would need to approve. Another beneficial 
attribute to this proposed action is regulatory efficiency resulting 
from the expeditious handling of future licensing actions by providing 
regulatory predictability and stability for the EAL changes as well as 
the exercise requirements for co-located licensees.

VII. Decision Rationale for Selection of the Proposed Action

    As previously discussed, the additional burdens on a licensee and 
the NRC are expected to be modest. However, a revision of the 
requirements is desirable to remove ambiguities in the current 
regulations, while maintaining safety and reducing unnecessary 
regulatory burden.

VIII. Implementation

    The NRC staff proposes that any Federal rulemaking take effect 90 
days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
    The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory 
analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as 
indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Commission certifies that the proposed rule if issued, will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed rule would affect only States and licensees of 
nuclear power plants. These States and licensees do not fall within the 
scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the size standards established by the 
NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

Backfit Analysis

(1) NRC Approval of EAL Changes
    The proposed rule, which eliminates the need for NRC review and 
approval for certain EAL changes, does not constitute a backfit as 
defined in 50.109(a)(1). Although 10 CFR 50.54(q) permits licensees to 
make changes to the emergency plan which do not decrease the 
effectiveness of the plan, 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E currently 
requires that EALs shall be approved by NRC. The proposed rulemaking 
would clarify the Appendix E requirement to clearly permit licensee 
changes to EALs without NRC review and approval if the changes do not 
decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan. The proposed rule 
requires NRC review and approval for those EAL changes which decrease 
the effectiveness of the emergency plan, or constitute a change from 
one EAL scheme to another. The proposed rulemaking clarifies the 
requirements and represents the current practice of making changes 
under 50.54 (q) requirements and is therefore not a backfit.
    In addition, the proposed change applies prospectively to changes 
initiated by licensees. The Commission has indicated in various 
rulemakings that the Backfit Rule does not protect the prospects of a 
potential applicant nor does the Backfit Rule apply when a licensee 
seeks a change in the terms and conditions of its license. A licensee-
initiated change in an EAL does not fall within the scope of actions 
protected by the Backfit Rule, and therefore the Backfit Rule does not 
apply to this proposed rulemaking.
(2) Co-Located Licensee
    The proposed rulemaking, which addresses the regulatory ambiguity 
regarding exercise participation requirements for co-located licensees, 
applies only to the existing co-located licensees for the Nine Mile 
Point and James A. Fitzpatrick site, and prospectively to future co-
located licensees.
    With respect to the Nine Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick 
licensees, the proposed rule would arguably constitute a backfit, 
inasmuch as there is some correspondence between the licensees and the 
NRC which may be interpreted as constituting NRC approval of 
``alternating participation'' by each licensee in a full-or partial-
participation

[[Page 43681]]

exercise every two years. The backfit may not fall within the scope of 
the compliance exception,10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i), in view of the lack of 
new information showing that the prior NRC approval of ``alternating 
participation'' was based upon a factual error or new information not 
known to the NRC at the time that the NRC approved ``alternating 
participation.'' However, these licensees have informally been 
implementing an emergency planning training regime since year 2000 that 
is consistent with the proposed rule. Accordingly, the NRC does not 
propose to prepare a backfit analysis addressing the Nine Mile Point 
and James A. FitzPatrick licensees.
    With respect to future holders of operating licenses (including 
combined licenses under part 52) for nuclear power plants which are co-
located at the same site, the Commission has indicated in various 
rulemakings that the Backfit Rule does not protect the prospects of a 
potential applicant.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

    Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire 
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and 
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and 
record keeping requirements.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act for 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the 
following amendment to 10 CFR part 50.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATIONS 
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. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 
Stat. 12422, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
    Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 
185, 168 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, 
Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 
50.43(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 
also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 
50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 
91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also 
issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 
50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 
2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 
Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under 
sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also 
issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

    2. In Appendix E to Part 50, Paragraphs IV. B and F.2.c. are 
revised to read as follows:

Appendix E--Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and 
Utilization Facilities

* * * * *

IV. Content of Emergency Plans

* * * * *

B. Assessment Actions

    The means to be used for determining the magnitude of, and for 
continually assessing the impact of the release of radioactive 
materials shall be described, including emergency action levels that 
are to be used as criteria for determining the need for notification 
and participation of local and State agencies, the Commission, and 
other Federal agencies, and the emergency action levels that are to 
be used for determining when and what type of protective measures 
should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect 
health and safety. The emergency action levels shall be based on in-
plant conditions and instrumentation in addition to onsite and 
offsite monitoring. These EALs shall be discussed and agreed on by 
the applicant or licensee and State and local governmental 
authorities, and approved by the NRC. Thereafter, EALs shall be 
reviewed with the State and local governmental authorities on an 
annual basis. A revision to an EAL must be approved by the NRC prior 
to implementation if: (1) Licensee is changing from one EAL scheme 
to another EAL scheme (e.g. a change from an EAL scheme based on 
NUREG-0654 to a scheme based upon NUMARC/NESP-007); or (2) the EAL 
revision decreases the effectiveness of the emergency plan. A 
licensee shall submit each request for NRC approval of the proposed 
EAL change as specified in Sec.  50.4. If a licensee makes a change 
to an EAL that does not require NRC approval, the licensee shall 
submit, as specified in Sec.  50.4, a report of each change made 
within 30 days after the change is made.
* * * * *

F. Training

    2. * * *
    c. Offsite plans for each licensee shall be exercised biennially 
with full participation by each offsite authority having a role 
under the plan. Where the offsite authority has a role under a 
radiological response plan for more than one licensee it shall fully 
participate in one exercise every two years and shall, at minimum, 
partially participate 5 in other offsite plan exercises 
in this period.
    If two licensees are located on any one site (co-located 
licensees) 6 each licensee shall:
    (1) Conduct an exercise biennially of its onsite emergency plan;
    (2) Participate quadrennially in an offsite biennial full or 
partial participation exercise; and
    (3) Conduct emergency planning activities and interactions in 
the three years between its participation in the offsite full or 
partial participation exercise with offsite authorities, in order to 
test and maintain interface functions among the affected State and 
local authorities and the licensee.

------------
    5``Partial participation'' when used in conjunction 
with emergency preparedness exercises for a particular site means 
appropriate offsite authorities shall actively take part in the 
exercise sufficient to test direction and control functions; i.e., 
(a) protective action decision making related to emergency action 
levels, and (b) communication capabilities among affected State and 
local authorities and the licensee.
    6Co-located licensees are licensees that share many 
of the following emergency planning and siting elements.
    a. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones,
    b. Offsite governmental authorities,
    c. Offsite emergency response organizations,
    d. Public notification system, and/or
    e. Emergency facilities.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of July, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-18845 Filed 7-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P