POLICY ISSUE 

(NOTATION VOTE) 

February 25, 2008 SECY-08-0024

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Luis A. Reyes 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: DELEGATION OF COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO STAFF TO 

APPROVE OR DENY EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES THAT 

REPRESENT A DECREASE IN EFFECTIVENESS 

PURPOSE: 

This paper requests that the Commission delegate to the staff the authority to approve or deny 

proposed emergency plan changes that would represent decreases in the effectiveness of a 

licensee’s emergency plan. While these changes may represent a reduction in effectiveness, 

the emergency plan would still meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 

CFR 50. A reduction below these requirements would require an exemption from the 

regulations. 

BACKGROUND: 

This paper responds to the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-06-0200, 

AResults of the Review of Emergency Preparedness Regulations and Guidance,@ dated 

January 8, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070080411). It addresses the issue of staff 

authority to approve or deny proposed emergency plan changes affecting power reactors, 

research reactors, and fuel facilities licensed under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) Part 50 that represent a decrease in effectiveness. 

CONTACTS: Don Tailleart, NSIR/DPR 

(301) 415-2966 

Kathryn Brock, NSIR/DPR 

(301) 415-2015 
The Commissioners - 2 - 

In SECY-06-0200 dated September 20, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061910707), the staff 

recommended several enhancements to the existing emergency preparedness (EP) regulations 

and guidance. As part of these enhancements, the staff included the following statement in 

SECY-06-0200: “In addition, to increase efficiency, the staff proposes that the Commission 

delegate to the staff the ability to approve emergency plan changes that represent a decrease in 

effectiveness.” 

In the SRM for SECY-06-0200, the Commission approved “the staff’s recommendation for the 

development of a rulemaking plan and guidance changes to enhance the EP regulations and 

guidance,” as well as “the proposal to clarify regulatory requirements regarding changes to 

emergency plans.” However, the Commission disapproved the staff’s request to be delegated 

the authority to approve emergency plan changes that represent a decrease in effectiveness. 

The staff was directed to resubmit a proposal to the Commission with a documented basis for 

the proposed action and recommended language to be incorporated in an appropriate 

management directive (MD) that would authorize such delegation. The staff was also directed to 

provide the extent of efficiencies that could be gained and stakeholder perspectives. 

In reviewing the background of licensee emergency plan change requests following issuance of 

the SRM for SECY-06-0200, the staff concluded that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

(NRR) had the authority for review and approval of all emergency plan changes, including those 

that decrease effectiveness, with one exception1

. This view was a change from the staff’s 

position that led to the request made in SECY-06-0200. However, the SRM for SECY-06-0200 

made it clear that the staff no longer had that authority. This paper provides the Commission 

with the information sufficient to return this authority to the staff. 

DISCUSSION: 

Documented Basis for the Delegation

Delegation of Commission authority to the staff is addressed in several regulations and MDs, 

including the following: 

• 10 CFR 50.2, “Definitions,” states that “Commission means the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission or its duly authorized representatives.” This means that the Commission 

can delegate specific responsibilities to the staff. 

• 10 CFR 1.43, “Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,” states, in part, that “[T]he Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation – (a) Develops, promulgates and implements regulations 

and develops and implements policies, programs, and procedures for all aspects of 

licensing, inspection and safeguarding of – ...(4) Emergency preparedness at such 

facilities...” 

• MD 9.27, “Organization and Functions – Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,” 

paragraph 0123-02, states, in part, that NRR has the principal responsibility for 

implementing regulations, and developing and implementing policies, programs, and 

procedures for all aspects of licensing and inspection, including EP at facilities licensed 

 

1 Per the SRM for SECY-96-0170, dated September 18, 1996, Commission approval is required for relocation of an 

emergency operations facility if it is located more than 25 miles from the nuclear power plant site.
The Commissioners - 3 - 

under 10 CFR Part 50. MD 9.27, paragraph 0123-022, further states, in part, that NRR is 

responsible for developing the overall Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluation 

of reactor licensee/applicant onsite/offsite emergency plans. 

NRC requirements pertaining to emergency plan changes by 10 CFR Part 50 licensees are 

addressed in 10 CFR 50.54(q). A change can be made to an emergency plan by a 

10 CFR Part 50 licensee without prior Commission approval as long as the plan=s effectiveness 

is not decreased and the plan, as changed, continues to meet the requirements of 

10 CFR 50.47(b) (for power reactors) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 (for power reactors, 

research reactors, and fuel facilities). Section 10 CFR 50.54(q) does not specify what types of 

changes are considered decreases in effectiveness and must be submitted to the Commission 

for review and approval prior to implementation. The regulation requires a licensee to assess 

whether proposed changes to emergency plan requirements result in a “decrease in 

effectiveness” of the emergency plan. Using the emergency planning standards in 

10 CFR 50.47(b), licensees assess the effectiveness of an emergency plan by evaluating the 

capability of the licensee to perform various EP functions in a timely and accurate manner, such 

as classification of emergencies, notification of offsite agencies, development of appropriate 

protective action recommendations, augmentation of the emergency response organization, 

activation of emergency response facilities, and effective mitigation of a plant event. Proposed 

emergency plan changes that adversely impact the capability to perform EP functions could 

result in a “decrease in effectiveness” conclusion and require Commission approval prior to 

implementation. 

Consistent with the requirements in 10 CFR 1.43 and MD 9.27, regarding NRR having the 

responsibility for implementing the procedures for all aspects of licensing of production and 

utilization facilities, the NRR staff is authorized to approve or deny significant licensing or 

regulatory actions including construction permits, operating licenses, license renewals, 

exemptions from the regulations, and license transfers. NRR is also authorized to issue orders 

to modify, suspend, or revoke a license. Changes to an emergency plan that would represent a 

decrease in effectiveness are similar to many of the routine licensing or regulatory actions the 

NRR staff has the authority to approve or deny (e.g., license amendments, American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code relief requests, security plan changes, and quality 

assurance plan changes). Delegating to NRR staff the authority to approve or deny these types 

of emergency plan changes provides a consistent level of oversight for similar types of routine 

licensing actions. 

It is estimated that the staff typically has 5 to 10 emergency plan changes submitted pursuant to 

10 CFR 50.54(q) under review at any given time. The staff believes this number is a reasonable 

representation of the inventory that would be under review in the future. These submittals often 

involve multiple dockets (multiple units at the same site and/or multiple sites). The following list 

provides several examples of the typical types of EP changes that were submitted pursuant to 

10 CFR 50.54(q) and are under current staff review. These changes are characterized as 

decreases in effectiveness consistent with the examples in Attachment 3 to RIS 2005-02, 

“Clarifying The Process For Making Emergency Plan Changes.” 

 

• A request to extend time goals for certain emergency response organization personnel to 

respond and activate the emergency response facility in the event of an emergency. 

 

• A request to eliminate certain emergency response organization positions. 

 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

• A request for a change to an emergency action level (EAL) that would result in lesser or 

no classification of the emergency conditions (e.g., same conditions for previous EAL 

would classify as an Alert and revised EAL would classify as an Unusual Event). 

Efficiencies to be Gained

Based on the above discussion, the staff’s view is that no further delegation is necessary. 

Additionally, the staff believes that there are several efficiencies that may be gained with staff 

authority for approving or denying changes to emergency plans which would result in a decrease 

in plan effectiveness. Regardless of the Commission’s decision on this SECY paper, licensee 

proposed changes to emergency plans that decrease the effectiveness of the plan would still be 

required to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The 

staff would review such changes to determine if the plan, as revised, would provide reasonable 

assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 

emergency. 

Further, the staff has significant technical expertise and knowledge in the EP field. Through the 

EP outreach program, the staff has developed relationships with key external stakeholders, such 

as the nuclear power industry, Federal Emergency Management Agency, non-governmental 

organizations, and State and local governments. The staff can quickly discuss proposed 

emergency plan changes with stakeholders, thereby fostering openness of the regulatory 

process in a short amount of time. In addition, succinct communications with licensees and 

stakeholders can be accommodated through the well-established processes used for other 

licensing actions. These processes ensure that interactions are timely and properly 

documented, and appropriate opportunities are provided for stakeholder participation 

(e.g., public meetings between NRC staff and licensees). 

As stated above, the staff has the applicable expertise and framework in place to appropriately 

evaluate changes to emergency plans which would result in a decrease in plan effectiveness. 

Emergency plan change requests that are evaluated at the staff level are more efficient because 

it eliminates the process step of forwarding it to the Commission, thus allowing a more timely 

response to the licensee. If the authority is returned to the staff, the approval or denial of 

emergency plan changes would be processed in accordance with the routine licensing action 

concurrence process. If policy issues arise during staff review, these would be forwarded to the 

Commission, as is normal practice. 

Stakeholder Perspectives

In the SRM for SECY-06-0200, the Commission directed the staff to seek out stakeholder 

perspective on the staff’s proposed change in authority for the disposition of emergency plan 

changes that involve a decrease in effectiveness. This has not been completed since, as 

described above, staff authority to approve or deny emergency plan changes was the process in 

place prior to the issuance of the SRM for SECY-06-0200. 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 currently planned rulemaking. Section 

10 CFR 50.54(p)(1) states that for changes which would decrease the effectiveness of a security 

plan, “[A] licensee desiring to make such a change shall submit an application for an 

amendment to the licensee’s license pursuant to § 50.90.” Pursuing this change to 

10 CFR 50.54(q) through the rulemaking process will provide an appropriate venue for seeking 
The Commissioners - 5 - 

stakeholder comments. The staff believes that delegating to the staff the authority to approve or 

deny proposed emergency plan changes that represent decreases in the effectiveness of a 

licensee’s emergency plan is acceptable at this time since this authority existed prior to issuance 

of the SRM for SECY-06-0200, and thus would not affect stakeholders. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the staff to approve or deny proposed 

emergency plan changes that represent decreases in the effectiveness of a licensee’s 

emergency plan. Establishing staff authority for approving or denying changes submitted for 

approval by a licensee in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q) is appropriate based on the type of 

activity, its commensurate safety significance, and the regulatory stability and predictability 

associated with establishing the authority at the staff level. This will align the staff’s authority to 

approve such changes with the Commission’s delegation of authority to staff already in place to 

approve or deny routine licensing or regulatory actions (e.g., license amendments, ASME Code 

relief requests, security plan changes, and quality assurance plan changes) and more significant 

licensing or regulatory actions (e.g., construction permits, operating licenses, license renewals, 

exemptions from regulations, and license transfers), thus maintaining consistency in the 

licensing process. Since 10 CFR 1.43 provides regulatory and licensing authority to NRR for 

EP-related matters and MD 9.27 gives NRR the primary responsibility for implementing policies, 

programs, and procedures for EP-related matters, no change to MD 9.27 is necessary. 

RESOURCES: 

If the Commission approves the delegation of its authority under 10 CFR 50.54(q) to staff, 

efficiencies will be gained in the timeliness to complete these activities as well as the elimination 

of some steps in the process. If the Commission retains the authority, there would be a 

moderate increase in resource requirements associated with preparing each change package 

for Commission review and disposition of Commission comments. Consistent with the staff’s 

recommendation for delegation of authority to the staff to approve or deny proposed emergency 

plan changes under 10 CFR 50.54(q), the anticipated staff resource needs of 0.75 full-time 

equivalent (FTE) for Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) and 0.25 FTE for NRR to 

review and evaluate these proposed emergency plan changes are contained in the Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2008 and FY 2009 budgets. The staff resources needed to implement the rulemaking 

commitment are 0.2 FTE and are also contained in the NSIR FY 2008 and FY 2009 budgets for 

the proposed EP rulemaking in SECY-06-0200. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and 

concurs. 

 /RA/ 

Luis A. Reyes 

Executive Director 

 for Operations
The Commissioners - 5 - 

stakeholder comments. The staff believes that delegating to the staff the authority to approve or 

deny proposed emergency plan changes that represent decreases in the effectiveness of a 

licensee’s emergency plan is acceptable at this time since this authority existed prior to issuance 

of the SRM for SECY-06-0200, and thus would not affect stakeholders. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the staff to approve or deny proposed 

emergency plan changes that represent decreases in the effectiveness of a licensee’s 

emergency plan. Establishing staff authority for approving or denying changes submitted for 

approval by a licensee in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q) is appropriate based on the type of 

activity, its commensurate safety significance, and the regulatory stability and predictability 

associated with establishing the authority at the staff level. This will align the staff’s authority to 

approve such changes with the Commission’s delegation of authority to staff already in place to 

approve or deny routine licensing or regulatory actions (e.g., license amendments, ASME Code 

relief requests, security plan changes, and quality assurance plan changes) and more significant 

licensing or regulatory actions (e.g., construction permits, operating licenses, license renewals, 

exemptions from regulations, and license transfers), thus maintaining consistency in the 

licensing process. Since 10 CFR 1.43 provides regulatory and licensing authority to NRR for 

EP-related matters and MD 9.27 gives NRR the primary responsibility for implementing policies, 

programs, and procedures for EP-related matters, no change to MD 9.27 is necessary. 

RESOURCES: 

If the Commission approves the delegation of its authority under 10 CFR 50.54(q) to staff, 

efficiencies will be gained in the timeliness to complete these activities as well as the elimination 

of some steps in the process. If the Commission retains the authority, there would be a 

moderate increase in resource requirements associated with preparing each change package 

for Commission review and disposition of Commission comments. Consistent with the staff’s 

recommendation for delegation of authority to the staff to approve or deny proposed emergency 

plan changes under 10 CFR 50.54(q), the anticipated staff resource needs of 0.75 full-time 

equivalent (FTE) for Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) and 0.25 FTE for NRR to 

review and evaluate these proposed emergency plan changes are contained in the Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2008 and FY 2009 budgets. The staff resources needed to implement the rulemaking 

commitment are 0.2 FTE and are also contained in the NSIR FY 2008 and FY 2009 budgets for 

the proposed EP rulemaking in SECY-06-0200. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and 

concurs. 

 /RA/ 

Luis A. Reyes 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML080100407 WITS 200700041/EDATS: SECY-2007-0009 

OFFICE NSIR/DDEP NSIR/DDEP NSIR/DPR NSIR/DPR NSIR/PMDA NRR/DORL 

NAME DTailleart KBrock ASalus MLeach CSchum REnnis 

DATE 01/11/08 01/10/08 01/10/08 01/10/08 01/10/08 02/ 13 /08 

OFFICE NRR OGC OCFO NRR/PMDA NSIR/OD EDO 

NAME JDyer 

(BBoger for)

BJones NLO

(HBenowitz for)

WMcCabe 

(LBarnett for)

CCorley RZimmerman 

(WDean for)

LReyes 

DATE 01/11/08 02/12/08 01/17/08 01/11/08 01/18/08 02/25/08 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY