[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3591-3599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1352]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 3591]]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150-AH00


Emergency Planning and Preparedness For Production and 
Utilization Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
emergency planning regulations governing the domestic licensing of 
production and utilization facilities. The final rule amends the 
current regulations as they relate to NRC approval of licensee changes 
to Emergency Action Levels (EALs). The final rule also clarifies 
exercise requirements for co-located licensees. These amendments are 
intended to resolve an inconsistency and an ambiguity in current 
regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 26, 2005.

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 making two changes to its 
emergency preparedness regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix E. The first amendment relates to NRC approval of licensee 
changes to EALs, paragraph IV.B and the second amendment relates to 
exercise requirements for co-located licensees, paragraph IV.F.2. A 
discussion of each of these revisions follows.

(1) 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 is an 
inconsistency in the emergency planning regulations regarding the 
threshold for when NRC approval of nuclear power plant licensee changes 
to EALs is required. 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 ``emergency action levels shall be * * * 
approved by NRC.'' Current industry practice follows the provisions of 
Sec.  50.54(q). Industry has generally made and implemented revisions 
to EALs without requesting NRC approval after determining that the 
changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan. When 
the determination is made that a change constitutes a decrease in 
effectiveness, licensees submit the changes to the Commission for 
approval. If a change involves a major change to the EAL scheme, for 
example, changing from an EAL scheme based on NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, 
``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency 
Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,'' 
guidance to an EAL scheme based on NUMARC/NESP-007, ``Methodology for 
Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' or NEI-99-01, ``Methodology 
for Development of Emergency Actions Levels,'' guidance or if the 
license proposes an alternate method for complying with the 
regulations, the industry practice has been to seek NRC review and 
approval before implementing the change.
    The Commission believes that prior NRC approval of every EAL change 
is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance that EALs will 
continue to provide an acceptable level of safety. This final amendment 
focuses on EAL changes that are of sufficient significance that a 
safety evaluation by the NRC is appropriate before the licensee may 
implement the change. The Commission believes that EAL changes that 
reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plan are of sufficient 
regulatory significance that prior NRC review and approval is 
warranted. This standard is the same standard that the current 
regulations provide for when 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. 
Therefore, this standard should also be used for EAL changes. On the 
basis of NRC's inspections of emergency plans, including EAL changes, 
the Commission believes that licensees have generally made appropriate 
determinations regarding whether an EAL change reduces the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan and that licensees have the 
capability to continue to do so. Limiting the NRC's approval to EAL 
changes that reduce the effectiveness of emergency plans or to an 
alternate method for complying with the regulations will ensure 
adequate NRC oversight of licensee-initiated EAL changes. This both 
increases regulatory effectiveness (through use of a single consistent 
standard for evaluating all emergency plan changes) and reduces 
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's proposal to convert from one 
EAL scheme (e.g., NUREG-0654-based) to another EAL scheme (e.g., 
NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01 based) or to a proposed alternate method 
for complying with the regulations is of sufficient significance to 
require prior NRC review and approval. NRC review and approval for such 
major changes in EAL methodology is necessary to ensure that there is 
reasonable assurance that the final EAL change will provide an 
acceptable level of safety.
    Accordingly, the Commission is revising Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 
50 to provide that Commission approval of EAL changes is 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 or NEI-99-01-based) or for a 
proposal of an alternate method for complying with the regulations.

[[Page 3592]]

(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 upgraded 1980 regulations required an annual exercise of the 
onsite and offsite emergency plans. The regulations were amended in 
1984 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). The regulations were 
amended in 1996 to change the frequency of exercising the licensees' 
onsite emergency plans from annual to biennial (61 FR 30129; June 14, 
1996). Appendix E to part 50, Paragraph IV.F.2, currently provides that 
the ``offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially'' 
(emphasis added) 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 or partial 
participation biennial exercise.\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. Specifically, it is ambiguous regarding 
whether each licensee must participate in a full or partial 
participation exercise of the offsite plan every 2 years, or whether 
the licensees may alternate their participation such that a full or 
partial participation exercise is held every 2 years and each licensee 
(at a two-licensee site) participates in a full or partial 
participation exercise every 4 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 2 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 shall be 
interpreted such that each nuclear power plant licensee, co-located on 
the same site, must participate in a full or partial participation 
offsite exercise every 2 years (and that each offsite authority is to 
participate on either a full or partial participation basis in each 
licensee's biennial offsite exercise). However, upon consideration of 
the matter, the Commission believes that requiring each licensee on a 
co-located site to participate in a full or partial participation 
exercise every 2 years, and for the offsite authorities to participate 
in each licensee's full or partial 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 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 either a single site or 
adjacent, contiguous sites. These plants may be owned and/or operated 
by different licensees. Therefore, the Commission believes that this 
final rulemaking is necessary to remove the ambiguity in Paragraph 
IV.F.2 and clearly specify the emergency preparedness exercise 
requirements for co-located licensees.
    The Commission finds that where two nuclear power plants are 
licensed to different licensees and meet the definition of being co-
located, 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 the respective 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, when one of 
the co-located licensees is participating in a full or partial 
participation exercise, the final rule requires any other co-located 
licensees to participate in activities and interaction (A&I) with 
offsite authorities. For the period between exercises, the final rule 
also requires the licensees to conduct emergency preparedness A&I. The 
purpose of these A&I would be to test and maintain interface 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 are not warranted 
and that this final regulation provides a sufficient level of assurance 
of emergency preparedness for the following reasons. First, the final 
rule is consistent with the current licensees' practice for the James 
A. FitzPatrick/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 licensees' 
onsite Emergency Plannings (EP) programs, FEMA's assessment of the 
adequacy of the offsite EP programs, 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). The

[[Page 3593]]

final rule contains a requirement that, in each of the 3 years between 
a licensee's participation in a full or partial participation exercise, 
each licensee shall participate in A&I with offsite authorities to test 
and maintain interface. By requiring that the licensee's emergency 
preparedness organization engage in activities and interactions with 
offsite authorities to exercise and test effective communication and 
coordination, the final rule provides 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 a different licensee. This final rulemaking addresses the 
undue burden placed upon offsite authorities in these circumstances.
    The final rule defines co-located licensees as two different 
licensees whose licensed facilities are located either on the same site 
or on adjacent, contiguous sites, and that share most of the following 
emergency planning and siting elements:

    1. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones;
    2. Offsite governmental authorities;
    3. Offsite emergency response organizations;
    4. Public notification system; and/or
    5. Emergency facilities.

Paragraph-by-Paragraph Discussion of Changes to 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix E

A. Paragraph IV.B--Assessment Actions
    This paragraph is amended by adding new language governing the type 
and scope of EAL changes that must receive NRC approval before 
implementation. The final amendment clarifies that the Commission 
approval of EAL changes is required for changes that decrease the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan when a licensee proposes an 
alternate method for complying with the regulations, when converting 
from one EAL scheme (e.g., NUREG-0654-based) to another EAL scheme 
(e.g., NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01-based). The final language also 
clarifies the existing requirement that applicants for initial reactor 
operating licenses and initial COLs must obtain Commission approval of 
initial EALs.
B. Paragraph IV.F.2.--Training
    This paragraph is amended to articulate the emergency planning 
exercise requirements for co-located licensees. Under the final 
amendment, co-located licensees are required to exercise their onsite 
plans biennially. The offsite authorities will exercise their plans 
biennially. The interface between offsite plans and the respective 
onsite plans will be exercised biennially in a full or partial 
participation exercise alternating between each licensee. Thus, each 
co-located licensee will participate in a full or partial participation 
exercise quadrennially. In addition, when one of the co-located 
licensees is participating in a full or partial participation exercise, 
the final rule requires any other co-located licensees to participate 
in A&I with offsite authorities. For the period between exercises, the 
final rule also requires the licensees to conduct emergency 
preparedness A&I. The purpose of A&I is to test and maintain interface 
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 final 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 (with appropriate activities and interactions with offsite authorities).
 A&I = Activities and interactions with offsite authorities.

    A new footnote 6 is also added to provide a definition of co-
located licensees. There are two elements to the definition, both of 
which must be satisfied. First, co-located licensees are two different 
licensees whose licensed facilities are located either on the same 
site, or on adjacent, contiguous sites. Secondly, the co-located 
licensees must share most of the following emergency planning and 
siting elements.
    1. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones;
    2. Offsite governmental authorities;
    3. Offsite emergency response organizations;
    4. Public notification system; and/or
    5. Emergency facilities.

The proposed rule did not actually specify that co-located licensees 
are those whose facilities either share the same site, or be located on 
adjacent contiguous sites, this is inherent in the concept of being 
``co-located.'' Nonetheless, the Commission believes that the rule 
should explicitly address this, and the final rule's language has been 
modified to include the concept of physical co-location as one of the 
criteria for a ``co-located'' licensee.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    On July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43673), the Commission published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking and requested public comments by October 7, 
2003. A total of seven comment letters were received. One comment 
letter was from a member of the public, six from utilities. All of the 
utility letters were in favor of the proposed changes, while the public 
commenter suggested that the changes were unnecessary. However, the 
comment letters did provide suggested clarifications to the proposed 
amendments. A detailed evaluation of each comment received is outlined 
below.
    Comment: In Paragraph IV.B (Assessment Actions), in lieu of adding 
``or licensee'' in the third sentence, one commenter proposed that the 
following be added after the fourth sentence, ``A revision to an EAL 
must be discussed and agreed on by the licensee and state and local 
government authorities prior to implementation.''
    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment because the 
Commission wants the original EAL submittals from applicants and 
licensees to be discussed and agreed on with the state and local 
governments and approved by the Commission. Additionally, the 
Commission continues to want EALs to be reviewed by the state and local 
governments annually and not only when revisions are made to the EALs.

[[Page 3594]]

    Comment: ``Reference is made throughout the proposed rule to 
NUMARC/NESP-007 as an alternative EAL scheme. Since the proposed rule 
was issued for public comment, NRC has endorsed NEI-99-01 as another 
acceptable EAL scheme. It is proposed that NEI-99-01 be referenced in 
addition to or in lieu of NUMARC/NESP-007.''
    Response: The Commission agrees with this comment and has 
referenced NEI-99-01 throughout the final amendment accordingly.
    Comment: ``The sixth and seventh sentences in the proposed Appendix 
E, Paragraph IV.B appear redundant to Sec.  50.54(q), with regard to 
emergency plan revisions, and Appendix E Paragraph V, with regard to 
implementing procedure revisions. Furthermore, these additions might 
necessitate a complementary change to Sec.  50.4(b)(5) which explicitly 
references submittals pursuant to Sec.  50.54(q) and appendix E 
Paragraph V. It is proposed that these two sentences be excluded from 
the final rule.''
    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment in that 
sentences six and seven are consistent with Sec.  50.54(q) and 50.4 
regarding sending information to the Commission. Therefore, these 
sentences do not necessitate a complementary change to Sec.  50.4, nor 
should they be deleted from the final regulation.
    Comment: ``There is a possible ambiguity in Table 1--Example of 
Emergency Preparedness Training for Two (2) Co-Located Licensees. The 
table, as well as the text of the proposed changes, does not indicate 
that in those years when a licensee participates in a full-
participation exercise, that licensee also participates in A&I with 
offsite response organizations. The result of this ambiguity could be 
an interpretation that only the non-participating licensee has any 
responsibility for A&I during an exercise year. The wording of the text 
and the table should be clarified.''
    Response: The Commission agrees and has modified Table 1 
accordingly.
    Comment: ``The list of A&I in the proposed rule contains 
requirements that may not apply to sites other than the James A. 
FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point sites, currently the only site with two 
power plants licensed to two separate licensees. For instance, the last 
recommended interaction is ``Licensee provides use of weapons firing 
range to local and state law enforcement (Sheriff, State Police).'' 
While this interaction may have been negotiated as part of a support 
agreement for offsite response agencies at one site, it may not be 
appropriate at other sites.''
    Response: The Commission agrees and has modified the list of A&I 
that are now contained in Regulatory Guide 1.101, Rev 5.
    Comment: The language in Sec.  50.54(q) could be further improved 
by establishing clear criteria for what constitutes a decrease in 
effectiveness of the Emergency Plan. Specifically, the following 
language should be revised, ``may make changes to these 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 paragraph 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E 
to this part.''
    The commenter suggested to add the words ``a change to an emergency 
plan will not decrease the effectiveness of the plan if the change will 
not decrease the abilities of the emergency response organization, and/
or supporting emergency response facilities and equipment, as required 
by paragraphs 10 CFR 50.47(b) and appendix E, or equivalent measures 
approved under 10 CFR 50.47(c), to reasonably assure the adequate 
protection of public health and safety in the event of a radiological 
emergency as stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). The change cannot delete any 
of the capabilities described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and (d), or in 
appendix E to 10 CFR part 50.''
    Response: While the Commission recognizes the merits of this 
comment, revising 10 CFR 50.54(q) to define what is meant by 
``decreasing the effectiveness'' of the emergency plans was not 
published as part of the proposed rule and is therefore beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking.
    Comment: One commenter believes that clarifying exercise 
requirements to allow alternating participation in exercises for co-
located licensees will remove ambiguity that currently exists. The 
proposed exercise frequency, coupled with the detailed activities and 
interactions, will continue to provide a sufficient level of assurance 
of offsite emergency preparedness. Also, it will provide clear guidance 
for future licensing actions and avoid undue burden on offsite response 
organizations. Section B. [69 FR 43675-43676] is very specific in its 
wording as to what is the responsibility of the licensee. In this 
regard the rule should not be specific but refer to the commitments 
defined in the respective emergency response plans. The commenter 
believes the licensee, state, and local emergency response 
organizations should have the latitude to determine the appropriate 
training and implementation responsibilities.
    Response: The Commission agrees and has removed the list of A&I 
from this rulemaking but has placed that list of A&I into Regulatory 
Guide 1.101, Rev. 5.
    Comment: One commenter believes the proposed amendment to Appendix 
E, paragraph IV.B is unnecessary. The commenter states that the 
conclusion that the current regulations are unclear and can be 
interpreted to require prior NRC approval for all changes to a 
licensee's EAL requires a torturous reading of the current language.
    Response: The Commission disagrees with this comment. The 
Commission believes that the regulations are ambiguous enough to be 
read to require NRC approval for all EAL changes. Consequently, the 
amendment to appendix E, paragraph IV.B is necessary to clarify that 
NRC approval of all EAL changes is not necessary to ensure an adequate 
level of safety.

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. These final amendments to the 
regulations contain no units.

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. This final 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 these standards. Accordingly, this 
final rulemaking is not within the purview of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113.

[[Page 3595]]

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    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 final amendments are not major 
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human 
environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not 
required. The basis for this determination reads as follows:

Need for the Action

1. NRC Review 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 
``emergency action levels shall be * * * approved by NRC.'' The 
industry practice, in general, has been to revise EALs in ways that do 
not reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plan and to implement the 
changes 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 is 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 2 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 two nuclear power plants, each licensed to a different licensee, 
meet the definition of being co-located. Specifically, it is ambiguous 
regarding whether each licensee must participate in a full-
participation exercise of the offsite plan every 2 years, or whether 
the licensees may alternate their participation, so that a full 
participation exercise is held every 2 years and each licensee (at a 
two-licensee site) participates in a full participation exercise every 
4 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 either 
the same site, or two or more adjacent, contiguous sites, must 
participate in a full participation offsite exercise every 2 years (and 
that each offsite authority is to participate on either a full or 
partial participation basis in the licensee's biennial offsite 
exercise).
    However, the Commission believes that requiring each co-located 
licensee to participate in a full participation exercise every 2 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 2 
years.
    The Commission finds that where two nuclear power plants are 
licensed to different licensees and meet the definition of being co-
located, 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 the respective 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, when one of 
the co-located licensees is participating in a full or partial 
participation exercise, the final rule requires the other co-located 
licensee to participate in A&I with offsite authorities. For the period 
between exercises, the final rule also requires the licensees to 
conduct emergency preparedness activities and interactions. The purpose 
of A&I would be to test and maintain interface among the affected state 
and local authorities and the licensees.

Environmental Impact of the Final Actions

    The NRC believes that the environmental impact for the final rule 
is negligible. The final rule does not require any changes to the 
design or the structures, systems and components of any nuclear power 
plant. The final rule would not 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 final rule, nor will there be any 
changes in occupational exposures to workers. Furthermore, the final 
rule will not result in any changes that would increase or change the 
nature of nonradiological effluents from nuclear power plants.

Alternative to the Final Actions

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

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    Cognizant personnel 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final 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 exercise requirements. The public burden for this information 
is estimated to average 30 hours per co-located licensee per year. 
Because the burden for this information collection is insignificant, 
OMB clearance is not required. Existing requirements were approved by 
the OMB, 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 on this regulation. This 
analysis examines the costs and benefits

[[Page 3596]]

of the alternatives considered by the Commission.

I. Statement of Problem and Objectives

    The Commission is making two changes to its emergency preparedness 
regulations contained in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. The first 
amendment relates to the NRC approval of licensee changes to EALs, 
paragraph IV.B and the second amendment relates to exercise 
requirements for co-located licensees, paragraph IV.F.2. A discussion 
of each of these final amendments follows.

(1) 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 is an 
inconsistency in the emergency planning regulations regarding the 
threshold for when NRC approval of nuclear power plant licensee changes 
to emergency action levels is required. 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 10 
CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of appendix E'' to 10 CFR part 50. By 
contrast, appendix E states that ``emergency action levels shall be * * 
* approved by NRC.'' Current industry practice 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 final change constitutes a 
decrease in effectiveness, licensees submit the changes to the 
Commission for 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 or NEI-99-01 
guidance, or when proposing an alternate method for complying with the 
regulations, it has been the industry practice to seek NRC review and 
approval before implementing the change.

(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 updated 1980 regulations required an annual exercise of the 
onsite and offsite emergency plans. The regulations were amended in 
1984 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). The regulations were 
amended in 1996 to change the frequency of exercising the licensees' 
onsite emergency plans 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 2 years, an exercise that may be included in the full 
participation biennial exercise. Thus, paragraph IV.F.2 is ambiguous 
about the emergency preparedness exercise requirements where two 
nuclear power plants, each licensed to a different licensee, and meet 
the definition of being co-located. Specifically, it is ambiguous 
regarding whether each licensee must participate in a full 
participation exercise of the offsite plan every 2 years, or whether 
the licensees may alternate their participation so that a full 
participation exercise is held every 2 years and each licensee (at a 
two-licensee site) participates in a full participation exercise every 
4 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 co-located nuclear power plant licensee must 
participate in a full participation offsite exercise every 2 years (and 
that each offsite authority is to participate on either a full or 
partial participation basis in each licensee's biennial offsite 
exercise). However, upon consideration of the matter, the Commission 
believes that requiring each co-located licensee to participate in a 
full participation exercise every 2 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 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 either a single site or adjacent, contiguous sites. 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 exercise obligations of co-located licensees.
    The Commission has determined that where two nuclear power plants 
are licensed to different licensees and meet the definition of being 
co-located, 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 the respective 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 final rule requires the other co-
located licensee to participate in A&I with offsite authorities. For 
the period between exercises, the final rule also requires the 
licensees to conduct emergency preparedness activities and 
interactions. The purpose of A&I would be to test and maintain 
interface among the affected state and local authorities and the 
licensees.
    The final rule defines co-located licensees as two different 
licensees whose licensed facilities are located either on the same site 
or on adjacent, contiguous sites, and that share most of the following 
emergency planning and siting elements.
    1. Plume exposure and ingestion emergency planning zones;
    2. Offsite governmental authorities;
    3. Offsite emergency response organizations,
    4. Public notification system; and/or
    5. 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

[[Page 3597]]

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, ``These emergency action levels 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 to 10 
CFR part 50.

(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 2 years, an exercise that may be included in the full 
participation biennial exercise. This exercise requirement, though 
straightforward, has implementation and compliance problems when two or 
more licensees' facilities are located either on the same site or on 
adjacent, contiguous sites, 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, the Nine Mile 
Point and James A. FitzPatrick site. However, the nuclear industry has 
expressed the possibility of locating new plants on currently approved 
sites, possibly with different licensees, thus the need for this final 
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 10 CFR part 
50, 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 approve 
new EAL schemes, as well as proposals of alternate methods for 
complying with the regulations, and requiring Commission approval of 
revisions to EALs that reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plans 
in accordance with Sec.  50.54(q). The rulemaking would provide a means 
for licensees to make changes to 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 a 
submittal for prior approval from the Commission. 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 (to amend the regulation) for co-located licensees would 
maintain safety because emergency planning 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 an ambiguous understanding of the 
requirements. This option would require NRC resources to conduct the 
rulemaking. The activities and interactions that would test and 
maintain the interface for co-located licensees and offsite authorities 
in the period between exercises will provide a consistent expectation 
and basis for these activities. The level of A&I 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 co-located 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 require NRC resources for 
conducting a rulemaking.

V. Estimation and Evaluation of Values and Impacts

    The final amendments modify current requirements in the NRC's 
approval of changes to 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 for consistency, and 
because it reflects current practice. It reflects the Commission's 
original intent and does not impose a burden on licensees. However, the 
second change does modify the information collection requirements and 
impacts the burden on future co-located licensees. Current co-located 
licensees have implemented an emergency planning training regime 
consistent with the final rule.
    The final amendment requires that future co-located licensees 
exercise their onsite plans biennially. The offsite authorities would 
exercise their plans biennially. The interface between offsite plans 
and the respective onsite plans would be exercised biennially in a full 
or partial participation exercise alternating between each licensee. 
Thus, each co-located licensee will 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 final rule requires any other co-located 
licensees to participate in activities and interactions with offsite 
authorities. For the period between exercises, the final rule requires 
each licensee to conduct emergency preparedness activities and 
interactions. Likewise each co-located licensee would log the 
activities and interactions with offsite authorities that are also 
conducted in the period between exercises. This final rule does not 
increase the burden on current co-located licensees because they have 
an emergency planning training regime consistent with the final rule. 
Future co-located licensees would keep a log of the A&I with offsite 
authorities which is estimated to average 30 hours per co-located 
licensee per year.

[[Page 3598]]

VI. Presentation of Results

    As noted, the impact on a co-located licensee to implement the 
final rule change is 30 hours per year per co-located licensee. This 
time would be used to maintain a log of the A&I 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 will assist 
the licensees in the proper submittals of EAL changes. The impact of 
improved regulations on the NRC is a decrease in the amount of staff 
time needed to review licensee 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.
    There would be several additional benefits associated with these 
amendments. The greatest would be the increased assurance that the 
Commission's 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 
licensee EAL change as well as future co-located licensees' exercise 
requirements that NRC would need to approve. Another beneficial 
attribute to this final 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 Final 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 final rule takes effect 90 days after publication in the 
Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Commission certifies that the final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The final 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 final rule, which eliminates the need for NRC approval for 
certain EAL changes, does not constitute a backfit as defined in Sec.  
50.109(a)(1). Although 10 CFR 50.54(q) permits licensees to make 
changes to their emergency plans which do not decrease the 
effectiveness of the plans, 10 CFR part 50, appendix E currently 
requires that all EALs shall be approved by NRC. The final rule 
clarifies the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E requirement to permit licensee 
changes to EALs without NRC approval if the changes do not decrease the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan. The final rule requires NRC 
approval for those EAL changes which decrease the effectiveness of the 
emergency plan, NRC approval when a licensee proposes to change from 
one EAL scheme to another as well as proposals of an alternate method 
for complying with the regulations. The final rule clarifies the 
requirements and represents the current practice of making changes 
under Sec.  50.54 (q) requirements and is therefore not a backfit.
    In addition, the final rule 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 to 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 final rulemaking.

(2) Co-Located Licensee

    The amendment that addresses the regulatory ambiguity regarding 
exercise participation requirements for co-located licensees applies 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 final 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 
exercise every 2 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 final rule. Accordingly, the NRC will not 
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 meet 
the definition of being co-located, the Commission has indicated in 
various rulemakings that the Backfit Rule does not protect the 
prospects of a potential applicant.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a 
major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB).

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 
recordkeeping requirements.


0
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 
1974, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following 
amendment to 10 CFR part 50.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATIONS 
FACILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:


[[Page 3599]]


    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. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), 
sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C 3504 note).
    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, 68 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).

0
2. In appendix E to part 50, paragraphs IV. B and F.2.c are revised, 
footnote 5 is revised, footnotes 6 through 10 are redesignated as 7 
through 11 respectively, and a new footnote 6 is added to paragraph 
IV.F.2.c to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 50--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 initial emergency action levels shall be 
discussed and agreed on by the applicant or licensee and state and 
local governmental authorities, and approved by the NRC. Thereafter, 
emergency action levels shall be reviewed with the State and local 
governmental authorities on an annual basis. A revision to an 
emergency action level must be approved by the NRC before 
implementation if:
    (1) The licensee is changing from one emergency action level 
scheme to another emergency action level scheme (e.g., a change from 
an emergency action level scheme based on NUREG-0654 to a scheme 
based upon NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01);
    (2) The licensee is proposing an alternate method for complying 
with the regulations; or
    (3) The emergency action level revision decreases the 
effectiveness of the emergency plan.
    A licensee shall submit each request for NRC approval of the 
proposed emergency action level 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 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 2 years and shall, at least, 
partially participate \5\ in other offsite plan exercises in this 
period.
    If two different licensees whose licensed facilities are located 
either on the same site or on adjacent, contiguous sites, and that 
share most of the elements defining co-located licensees,\6\ each 
licensee shall:
    (1) Conduct an exercise biennially of its onsite emergency plan; 
and
    (2) Participate quadrennially in an offsite biennial full or 
partial participation exercise; and
    (3) Conduct emergency preparedness activities and interactions 
in the years between its participation in the offsite full or 
partial participation exercise with offsite authorities, to test and 
maintain interface among the affected state and local authorities 
and the licensee. Co-located licensees shall also participate in 
emergency preparedness activities and interaction with offsite 
authorities for the period between exercises.
* * * * *
    \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.
    \6\ Co-located licensees are two different licensees whose 
licensed facilities are located either on the same site or on 
adjacent, contiguous sites, and that share most 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 19th day of January 2005.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-1352 Filed 1-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P