[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