[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50840-50845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23683]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0365]
Notice of Extension of Comment Period for Proposed Generic
Communication; NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-02, Revision 1,
Clarifying the Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a
notice of opportunity for public comment in the Federal Register (74 FR
42699) on August 24, 2009, proposing to issue a regulatory issue
summary (RIS) to clarify the process for making emergency plan changes.
This FRN version of the draft Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) does not
include the Attachments and Enclosures as described in the body of the
RIS. To view these attachments and enclosures, refer to the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), document
number
[[Page 50841]]
ML080710029. The NRC's internal non-concurrence process ``Draft
Management Directive 10.158, `NRC Non-Concurrence Process','' has been
invoked by a member of the NRC staff regarding draft RIS 2005-01,
Revision 1. The non-concurrence and supporting information is
publically available through ADAMS Accession No. ML092250622.
DATES: The public comment period ends on October 8, 2009. This notice
announces a fifteen-day extension of the public comment period until
October 23, 2009. Comments submitted after this date will be considered
if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be
given except for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-0365 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site
Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any
identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2009-0365. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
[email protected].
Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking and
Directives Branch (RDB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to RDB at (301) 492-
3446.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don A. Johnson at 301-415-4040 or by
e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-02, Revision 1; Clarifying the
Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes
Addressees
All holders of licenses for nuclear power reactors under the
provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part
50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,''
including those that have permanently ceased operations and have
certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor
vessel.
All holders of licenses for research and test reactors under Part
50.
All holders of and applicants for nuclear power plant construction
permits, early site permits and limited work authorizations under Part
50.
All holders of a combined license for a nuclear power plant under
the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and
Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.''
All holders of licenses for fuel facilities under the provisions of
10 CFR Part 40 ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material'' required to
have an emergency plan under Sec. 40.31(j)(1)(ii).
All holders of licenses for fuel facilities under the provisions of
10 CFR Part 70 ``Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material''
required to have an emergency plan under Sec. 70.22(i)(1)(ii).
All holders of certifications for gaseous diffusion plants under
the provisions of 10 CFR Part 76 ``Certification of Gaseous Diffusion
Plants'' required to have an emergency plan under Sec. 76.35(f).
All holders of site-specific licenses for Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installations under 10 CFR Part 72 ``Licensing Requirements for
the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste.''
Intent
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this
regulatory issue summary (RIS) revision to inform stakeholders that
reactor emergency plan changes that require prior NRC approval, in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), will need to be submitted as license
amendment requests in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, ``Application for
Amendment of License, Construction Permit, or Early Site Permit.'' In
addition, this revision will (1) clarify the meaning of ``decrease in
effectiveness'', as stated in 10 CFR 50.54(q); (2) clarify the process
for evaluating proposed changes to emergency plans; (3) provide a
method for evaluating proposed changes to emergency plans; (4) provide
clarifying guidance on the appropriate content and format of
applications submitted to the NRC for approval prior to implementation;
and (5) clarify what constitutes a report of emergency plan changes to
be submitted to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q). This
revision supersedes RIS 2005-02, dated February 14, 2005, in its
entirety due to the extent of changes.
(1) For non-reactor facilities, the regulations in 10 CFR 40.35(f),
70.32(i), and 76.91(o) provide direction to licensees seeking to revise
their emergency plan. An emergency plan includes the plan as originally
approved by the NRC and all subsequent changes made by the licensee
with, and without, prior NRC review and approval under these
regulations. The current practice for non-reactor facilities concerning
emergency plan changes that require prior NRC approval is to submit the
changes as a license amendment request. Current regulatory guidance for
non-reactor emergency plans is contained within Regulatory Guide 3.67,
``Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and
Materials Facilities.'' The NRC staff is working on updating Regulatory
Guide 3.67 to include applicable elements of this RIS for fuel cycle
facilities. The NRC will publish a Federal Register Notice of the
issuance for public comment and availability of the draft updated
Regulatory Guide.
(2) For Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI), the
emergency plan change process should be followed in accordance with 10
CFR 72.44(f). The information in this RIS provides useful examples of
the type of evaluations NRC expects ISFSI licensees to conduct in
reviewing changes to their Part 72 approved emergency plans (refer to
Sec. 72.24(k) and Sec. 72.32) and determining if the changes may be
made without prior NRC approval as required by Sec. 72.44(f). The
current practice for non-reactor facilities concerning emergency plan
changes that require prior NRC approval is to submit the changes as a
license amendment request. Additional guidance on emergency planning
for ISFSI licensees is provided in Spent Fuel Storage and
Transportation Interim Staff Guidance-16, ``Emergency Planning.''
This RIS revision requires no action or written response on the
part of addressees.
Background Information
The regulation in 10 CFR 50.54(q) provides direction to licensees
seeking to revise their emergency plan. The
[[Page 50842]]
requirements related to nuclear power plant emergency plans are given
in the standards in 10 CFR 50.47, ``Emergency Plans,'' and the
requirements of Appendix E, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for
Production and Utilization Facilities'' to 10 CFR Part 50. The
standards in Sec. 50.54(q) and Appendix E to Part 50 also establish
the requirements related to emergency plans for research and test
reactors. Based upon feedback from the nuclear power industry, the
research and test reactor community, and experience gained by the NRC
staff after reviewing emergency plan changes, the NRC staff has
identified a need to clarify the process for making changes to an
emergency plan and to provide licensees with a consistent method for
evaluating proposed emergency plan changes.
In addition, the NRC staff clarifies herein that the license
amendment process is the correct process to use when reviewing decrease
(reduction) in effectiveness submittals. Courts have found that
Commission actions that expand licensees' authority under their
licenses without formally amending the licenses constitute license
amendments and should be processed through the Commission's license
amendment procedures. See Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. NRC, 59
F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995); Sholly v. NRC, 651 F.2d 780 (DC Cir. 1980)
(per curiam), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 1194 (1983); and In re
Three Mile Island Alert, 771 F.2d 720, 729 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1082 (1986). See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-96-13, 44 NRC 315 (1996).
A proposed emergency plan change that would reduce the effectiveness of
the plan would give the licensee a capability to operate at a level of
effectiveness that was not previously authorized by the NRC. In this
situation, the licensee's operating authority would be expanded beyond
the authority granted by the NRC as reflected in the emergency plan
without the proposed change. Thus, an emergency plan change that would
reduce the effectiveness of the plan would expand the licensee's
operating authority under its license. A change expanding the
licensee's operating authority is, according to the courts, a license
amendment and must be accomplished through a license amendment process.
The staff also stated in SECY-08-0024, ``Delegation of Commission
Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny Emergency Plan Changes that
Represent a Decrease in Effectiveness,'' dated February 25, 2008, ``To
make the process by which the NRC will address proposed 10 CFR 50.54(q)
changes that represent a decrease in effectiveness clearer, the staff
intends to incorporate language similar to that which currently exists
in 10 CFR 50.54(p)(1), as part of the planned rulemaking.'' The current
schedule for the staff's emergency preparedness (EP) rulemaking calls
for the final rule to be issued no earlier than the summer of 2010.
Because of the timeframe associated with the rulemaking, the staff has
determined that the prudent action is to issue a RIS to clarify that
licensees must submit proposed emergency plan changes which represent a
decrease in effectiveness for NRC approval as specified in Sec.
50.54(q), and the license amendment process is the correct process for
the staff to use in reviewing the proposed change. For purposes of
discussion and to incorporate the possibility of future regulatory
changes, the term ``decrease in effectiveness'' is considered
synonymous with ``reduction in effectiveness (RIE).''
Summary of Issue
Licensees routinely evaluate proposed revisions to their emergency
plan, to determine if these changes reduce the effectiveness of their
current approved emergency plan or adversely affect their ability to
implement the emergency plan. Clarification is needed of an acceptable
method for licensees to use in consistently evaluating proposed changes
to the emergency plan to ensure the licensee's ability to maintain and
implement the approved emergency plan. Additionally, licensees should
understand the process for submitting proposed emergency plan changes
to the NRC for approval prior to implementation when there is a
determination of a decrease (reduction) in effectiveness.
The change process is described below and clarified by providing a
screening criterion that would ensure consistency of emergency plan
change determinations of a decrease (reduction) in effectiveness.
Enclosure 1, ``10 CFR 50.54(q) Evaluation Procedure,'' presents a
suggested outline for applying the screening criteria for the
evaluation of a proposed emergency plan change, which is graphically
depicted in Attachment 1 to Enclosure 1, ``10 CFR 50.54(q) Flowchart.''
In addition, Enclosure 2, ``Guidance for Content of Emergency Plan
Submittals to NRC Requiring Prior NRC Approval,'' provides guidance to
licensees in the development of their application for NRC prior
approval of proposed emergency plan changes. The information in this
RIS revision clarifies the process for changing emergency plans to
ensure that licensees maintain effective emergency plans thereby
maintaining reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can
and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. This RIS
revision also provides a consistent methodology for licensees to
evaluate changes to their emergency plans and provides clarifying
guidance for the development of applications for NRC prior approval.
This will help ensure that NRC review activities and decisions are
effective, efficient, predictable, and consistent.
The regulations require licensees to submit a report of each change
within a specified period of time after the change is made. The NRC
Inspectors use this report to evaluate the effectiveness of a
licensee's emergency plan change management program in accordance with
NRC Inspection Procedures, and although not required, the inclusion of
the applicable licensee evaluation and justification for the change as
part of this report would be beneficial to the staff.
Regulation
In part, 10 CFR 50.54(q) states the following:
The nuclear power reactor licensee 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 Sec. 50.47(b) and the requirements of appendix E to
this part. The research reactor and/or the fuel facility licensee may
make changes to these plans without Commission approval only if these
changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans,
as changed, continue to meet the requirements of appendix E to this
part * * *. Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of the
approved emergency plans may not be implemented without application to
and approval by the Commission.
Definitions
(1) Decrease (Reduction) in Effectiveness (RIE).
(a) A change in an emergency plan that results in reducing the
licensee's capability to perform an emergency planning function in the
event of a radiological emergency.
(i) Note that other licensee activities could affect the ability to
implement the emergency plan effectively. Licensees must maintain the
effectiveness of their NRC approved emergency plans, up to and
including ensuring that changes made to other programs, structures,
[[Page 50843]]
systems or components do not adversely impact the licensee's ability to
effectively implement its emergency plan. See Information Notice 2005-
19, ``Effect of Plant Configuration Changes on the Emergency Plan,''
dated July 18, 2005, for additional information.
(1) An RIE will occur if there is a change or reduction in an
emergency planning function without a commensurate reduction or change
in the bases for that emergency planning function or without measures
put in place to reduce the impact of the proposed change to the
emergency plan. The overall impact of proposed changes on the
effectiveness of the emergency plan or its implementation is to be
determined, not just the effect that individual changes have on a
specific part of the emergency plan.
(2) The following provides some examples of RIEs that would require
prior NRC approval without a commensurate reduction or change in the
bases for that emergency planning function or without measures put in
place to reduce the impact of the proposed change to the emergency
plan. These examples should not be viewed as being all-inclusive or
exclusive; rather, licensees should use them to inform decisions
involving various changes being considered. It is also possible that
site-specific situations may make a particular example inapplicable to
a site. Even if a particular example completely encompasses the change
being considered, the licensee's emergency plan change evaluation
should explain why the site-specific implementation of the change would
not be an RIE for that particular site. It is not sufficient for such
an analysis to simply cross-reference an example in this RIS revision.
(a) A change that would cause any of the major functional areas or
major tasks identified in the emergency plans to be unassigned. An
example of this would be a technical specification change eliminating
on-shift radiation technician coverage without making an alternative
arrangement for providing the requisite technical expertise in a timely
manner.
(b) A change that would impede site access for offsite assistance
relied on in the plan without viable alternate arrangements being made.
An example would be the closure or planned closure of a major river
bridge in a case where the route via the nearest available crossing
would incur a substantial increase in response time.
(c) A change to the emergency response organization (ERO) callout
procedures or hardware that would delay ERO notification such that the
augmentation times in the emergency plans can no longer be achieved. A
change to communications hardware that would reduce the capability to
initiate and complete required emergency notifications within 15
minutes of the emergency declaration.
(d) A change to the onsite meteorological measurements program such
that meteorological data currently readily available in emergency
response facilities in accordance with the emergency plan would no
longer be readily available.
(e) A change to hazard assessment and radiation protection
assignments in re-entry and recovery procedures that would not provide
an adequate level of personal protection in uncertain reentry
conditions.
(f) A change that reduces the availability of site familiarization
training currently presented to offsite assistance groups (e.g.,
firefighters, local law enforcement, and medical services, including
mutual aid companies that would support these groups).
(g) A change that delegates the responsibility for performance of
various aspects of emergency plan maintenance to contractors or other
external groups without adequate supervisory oversight to ensure that
program elements continue to be met (e.g., a change delegating testing
and maintenance of the Alert and Notification System to an external
group not subject to typical nuclear facility work process and
configuration controls).
(3) For proposed changes to individual emergency action levels
(EALs) (i.e., not an entire EAL scheme change), an RIE will occur in
the following cases:
(a) The proposed change to the EAL would potentially cause an
underclassification, (e.g., what was considered an Alert in the
approved emergency plan would now be considered an Unusual Event or not
classified at all).
(b) The proposed change to the EAL would potentially cause an
overclassification, (e.g., what was considered a Site Area Emergency in
the approved emergency plan would now be considered a General Emergency
with potential consequences for public health and safety).
(c) If the proposed change to the EAL is to change an Initiating
Condition setpoint (or threshold) without a commensurate change in the
regulatory basis for the EAL Initiating Condition setpoint (or
threshold).
(d) The actual numerical setpoint of a given EAL may be revised
without prior NRC approval under the following conditions via the 10
CFR 50.54(q) emergency plan change process:
(i) The regulatory basis for the EAL setpoint has been revised and
is approved via a letter to the licensee or a Safety Evaluation (SE).
For example, a site receives NRC approval (via a SE) for power up-rate.
Power up-rate implementation causes the ``normal'' radiation levels to
increase, thus necessitating an increase in EAL setpoints based on
``normal'' radiation levels. The regulatory basis for the setpoint has
been changed, thus this change can be processed via the emergency plan
change process because the effectiveness of the emergency plan has not
been reduced.
(ii) The regulatory basis for the EAL setpoint has not been changed
but the method for detection of the setpoint has been changed. For
example, a given EAL setpoint is based upon exceeding 1 Rem total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE). The radiation monitor reading
setpoint is based upon a reading that would give the equivalent of
exceeding 1 Rem TEDE. The radiation monitor is replaced and operates
differently. The actual numerical value of the EAL needs to be revised
to that which is equivalent to 1 Rem TEDE. The regulatory basis for the
setpoint has not been changed, thus this change can be processed via
the emergency plan change process as the effectiveness of the emergency
plan has not been reduced.
(2) Emergency plan.
(a) The document(s) prepared and maintained by the licensee that
identify and describe the licensee's methods for maintaining and
performing emergency planning functions. An emergency plan includes the
plans as originally approved by the NRC and all subsequent changes made
by the licensee with, and without, prior NRC review and approval under
10 CFR 50.54(q).
(i) The licensee's emergency plan consists of:
(1) The emergency plan as approved by the NRC via a Safety
Evaluation Report, SE, or license amendment (LA) from the Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) or the Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME).
(2) Changes to the emergency plan explicitly reviewed by the NRC
through an SE, or LA from NRR or FSME, and found to meet the applicable
regulations.
(3) Changes to the emergency plan explicitly reviewed by the NRC
through an SE, or LA, and found to be an approved amendment to the
licensee's emergency plan.
[[Page 50844]]
(4) Changes made by the licensee without NRC review and approval
after the licensee concluded that the change(s) do not constitute a
RIE.
Emergency Plan Change Process
1. Process Overview
Reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will
be taken in the event of a radiological emergency is based on the
licensee's emergency plan, and the successful implementation of that
emergency plan. The body of an emergency plan contains statements that
describe how a licensee will meet regulatory requirements. The
standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to 10
CFR Part 50 establish the contents of the nuclear power reactor
emergency plan. The standards in Sec. 50.54(q) and Appendix E to Part
50 establish the requirements related to emergency plans for research
and test reactors. Subsequent changes to the emergency plan must comply
with Sec. 50.54(q). Enclosure 1 outlines the emergency plan change
process, and Attachment 1 to Enclosure 1 graphically depicts the
process in a flowchart.
2. Emergency Plan Review
Changes to an emergency plan may result from advances in
technology, new or revised rules, site-specific needs, processes,
guidance (such as Nuclear Energy Institute guidance endorsed by the
NRC), technical specification changes, or modifications to
instrumentation. Changes that the licensee has identified as RIEs must
be submitted to the NRC for review and prior approval. The NRC staff
will review the emergency plan change against the standards,
regulations, guidance documents and the approved emergency plan. The
NRC will review and approve submittals on a case-by-case basis. An
emergency plan change approved for one licensee does not mean that the
same or similar change would be approved for another licensee.
For the purposes of determining whether a change to a licensee's
emergency plan constitutes an RIE, the licensee should use the last
emergency plan reviewed and approved by the NRC. If the emergency plan
change process has been properly implemented over the years, comparing
a proposed emergency plan change to either the latest emergency plan
reviewed and approved by the NRC or the emergency plan as changed by
the licensee should result in the same RIE determination. For example,
if a licensee made a series of changes over time to the same specific
provision of the emergency plan, where each change was separately
determined not to constitute an RIE, then there should be no RIE.
Therefore, there should be no RIE when comparing the latest emergency
plan to the emergency plan reviewed and approved by the NRC. If a
licensee or the NRC concludes that there is a RIE due to a series of
changes over time, then the provisions of the emergency plan change
process have not been correctly followed.
The EP requirements are a framework for how the licensee will meet
the applicable standards and requirements of the regulations. If a
licensee has determined that an EP requirement should be increased in
order to meet the planning standards or Appendix E to Part 50
requirements, these changes must follow the emergency plan change
process and revise the emergency plan to reflect this increase to the
EP requirement. Nevertheless, whether or not an emergency plan change
results in a RIE is not determined by assessing whether NRC regulatory
requirements continue to be met after the EP requirement has been
changed. The licensee's emergency plan may include EP requirements that
exceed the baseline standards and requirements as set forth in Sec.
50.47(b) and Appendix E to Part 50. For the RIE determination, the
change or changes should be evaluated against the capability to perform
the functions and the associated time requirement of performing the
function, if applicable. The evaluation should document whether the
capability or timeliness to perform a function is lost and/or degraded.
In addition to the RIE determination, the change or changes should also
be evaluated to verify that they continue to meet the standards and
requirements as set forth in Sec. 50.47(b) and Appendix E to Part 50.
The current Commission requirements for document retention in Sec.
50.54(q), specify that changes that do not warrant NRC approval must be
retained for 3 years. The licensee must retain changes that reduce the
effectiveness of the emergency plan until the Commission terminates the
license. It may be prudent to save emergency plan change documentation
to show the historical progression of changes, since the Commission,
through its staff, may review at any time, the emergency plan changes
that have been made.
Related Topics Regarding Emergency Plan Changes
1. Regulatory Process for Evaluating Licensee Requests for NRC Prior
Approval of Emergency Plan Changes Determined To Be a RIE in Accordance
With 10 CFR 50.54(q)
Similar to security plan changes submitted via 10 CFR 50.54(p)(1),
emergency plan changes that result in the reduction in the
effectiveness of the approved emergency plan require prior NRC
approval, under Sec. 50.54(q), and should be submitted as license
amendment requests under Sec. 50.90.
2. Emergency Action Level Changes
A revision to an entire EAL scheme, from NUREG-0654, ``Criteria for
Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and
Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,'' to another NRC-
endorsed EAL scheme, must be submitted for prior NRC approval as
specified in Section IV.B. of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The
Statement of Considerations for the final rule amending the NRC's
regulations relating to NRC approval of EAL changes, dated January 26,
2005, stated in part, ``The Commission believes a licensee's proposal
to convert from one EAL scheme (e.g., NUREG-0654-based) to another EAL
Scheme (NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI 99-01 based) * * * 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.'' Regulatory Guide 1.101,
Revisions 3 and 4, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear
Power Reactor,'' endorsed NUMARC/NESP-007 and NEI 99-01 EAL guidance,
respectively, as acceptable alternatives to the guidance provided in
NUREG-0654 for development of EALs to comply with Sec. 50.47 and
Appendix E to Part 50. A change in an EAL scheme to incorporate the
improvements provided in NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI 99-01 would not
decrease the overall effectiveness of the emergency plan and would not
expand a licensee's operating authority beyond that previously
authorized by NRC, but due to the potential safety significance of the
change, the change needs prior NRC review and approval. This approval
is given via SE and letter.
Revisions of an individual EAL that results in a decrease in
effectiveness must be submitted for NRC approval as specified in Sec.
50.54(q), and the license
[[Page 50845]]
amendment process is the correct process for the staff to use in
reviewing the proposed change. As discussed previously, an emergency
plan change that would reduce the effectiveness of the plan would
expand the licensee's operating authority under its license. A change
expanding the licensee's authority is, according to the courts, a
license amendment and must be accomplished through a license amendment
process. For research and test reactors, NUREG-0849, ``Standard Review
Plan for the Review and Evaluation of Emergency Plans for Research and
Test Reactors,'' issued October 1983, provides guidance on EALs and how
changes should be made on a case-by-case basis with consideration of
the provisions of Sec. 50.54(q).
3. Inspection Activities
For power reactors, the NRC inspectors use Inspection Procedure
(IP) 71114.04 to conduct a review of the effectiveness of the
licensee's implementation of the 10 CFR 50.54(q) change process. For
research and test reactors, the NRC inspectors use IP 69011, ``Class I
Research and Test Reactor Emergency Preparedness,'' and IP 69001,
``Class II Research and Test Reactors.'' The inspector will perform a
screening review of the change relative to the emergency plan; however,
this will not constitute NRC approval of the plan as changed.
The documentation of the change reviewed by the inspectors will be
the report provided by the licensee as stated in Sec. 50.54(q).
Although not required, the inclusion of the applicable licensee
evaluation and justification for the change as part of this report
would assist the staff in the review.
4. Lower Tier Documents
If a licensee has incorporated a lower tier document into the
emergency plan or the emergency plan explicitly references a lower tier
document as a method to implement a specific requirement in the
emergency plan, then, it is considered part of the plan and subject to
Sec. 50.54(q) review. Historically, some licensees have developed
emergency plan implementing procedures that included the necessary
information needed for activities that are required to meet the
regulations, for example, procedures for notifications, dose
assessment, protective action recommendations, emergency
classifications and emergency action levels. The staff is not making
the use of Sec. 50.54(q) to review all changes to lower tier documents
a requirement, but acknowledges that using Sec. 50.54(q) as the
regulation to provide revision control of these lower tier documents
has been in place and supported by the NRC through the inspection and
licensing process.
Backfit Discussion
This RIS revision does not require any action or written response.
This RIS revision provides non-regulatory review guidance for licensees
and clarifies existing regulatory requirements licensees must follow
when proposing changes to their emergency plans. The NRC's Backfit
Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, applies to, among other things, the procedures
necessary to operate a nuclear power plant. To the extent that using a
license amendment process for making modifications to emergency plans
that reduce the effectiveness of the plans is considered a change, it
would be a change to the NRC's regulatory process for addressing
modifications to the emergency plan. The NRC's regulatory review
process is not a licensee procedure required for operating a plant that
would be subject to backfit limitations.
Further, the Backfit Rule protects licensees from Commission
actions that arbitrarily change license terms and conditions. In 10 CFR
50.54(q), a licensee requests Commission authority to do what is not
currently permitted under its license. The licensee has no valid
expectations protected by the Backfit Rule regarding the means for
obtaining the new authority that is not permitted under the current
license. For these reasons, this RIS revision does not constitute a
backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, and the staff did not perform a backfit
analysis.
Federal Register Notification
To be done after the public comments periods.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This RIS revision does not contain information collections and,
therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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
Office of Management and Budget control number.
Contact
Please direct any questions about this matter to Don A. Johnson at
(301) 415-4040, or by e-mail: [email protected].
End of Draft Regulatory Issue Summary
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing
the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of September 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin C. Murphy,
Chief, Generic Communications Branch, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-23683 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P