POLICY ISSUE 

NOTATION VOTE 

July 25, 2013 SECY-13-0079

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CHANGE APPROVAL AUTHORITY 

FOR EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES 

PURPOSE:

To request Commission approval to change the approval authority for emergency plan (EP) 

changes which result in a decrease in effectiveness from the Director of the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation (NRR), to the Branch Chief level of NRR, in consultation with the Office of 

Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR). This paper does not address any new 

commitments or resource implications. 

BACKGROUND: 

In SECY-06-0200, “Results of the Review of Emergency Preparedness Regulations and 

Guidance,” dated September 20, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML061910707), the staff provided to the Commission the 

results of a review of the emergency preparedness regulations and associated guidance, and 

the staff requested Commission approval for the development of a rulemaking plan and 

associated guidance. In SECY-06-0200, the staff also discussed Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.54(q) and the requirements within this section regarding EP 

changes that constitute a decrease in effectiveness1

. In that SECY paper, the staff requested 

CONTACT: John G. Lamb, NRR/DORL

 (301) 415-3100 

 

1 Per the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-02, Revision 1, 

“Clarifying the Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes,” a decrease in effectiveness is defined as 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. In 2011, the NRC revised the requirements in 

10 CFR 50.54(q) and changed the concept of a “decrease” in effectiveness to a “reduction” in 

effectiveness. For the purposes of this paper (i.e., change in approval authority), the staff views these 

requirements as equivalent.
The Commissioners - 2 - 

that the Commission delegate to the staff the ability to approve emergency plan changes that 

represent a decrease in effectiveness. 

In SRM-SECY-06-0200, dated January 8, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070080411), the 

Commission approved “the staff’s recommendation for the development of a rulemaking plan 

and guidance changes to enhance the emergency preparedness 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 delegate the authority to staff to 

approve EP 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 Commission also directed the staff to provide the extent 

of efficiencies that could be gained by delegating such authority and stakeholder perspectives. 

On February 25, 2008, the staff submitted SECY-08-0024, “Delegation of Commission Authority 

to Staff to Approve or Deny Emergency Plan Changes that Represent a Decrease in 

Effectiveness” (ADAMS Accession No. ML072900547). In reviewing the background of licensee 

EP change requests following the issuance of the SRM for SECY-06-0200, the staff concluded 

that it had the authority to review and approve all EP changes, including those that represent a 

decrease in effectiveness, with one exception. The exception, described in SRM-SECY-96-

0170, dated September 18, 1996, requires Commission approval for relocation of an emergency 

operations facility if it is located more than 25 miles from the nuclear power plant site. The staff 

is not proposing to change this direction. In SRM-SECY-08-0024, dated May 19, 2008 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML081400510), the Commission provided the following direction on the authority 

to approve EP changes that represent a decrease in effectiveness: 

This authority is delegated not lower than the Director (or Deputy Office Director 

when acting for the Office Director) of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

(NRR), in consultation with the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. 

The staff issued the final rule regarding enhancements to emergency preparedness regulations 

in the Federal Register (76 FR 72560; November 23, 2011). The final rule, “Enhancements to 

Emergency Preparedness Regulations,” codified certain voluntary protective measures 

contained in NRC Bulletin 2005-02, “Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for 

Security-Based Events,” dated July 18, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051740058). The final 

rule also codified the generically applicable requirements, similar to those that the Commission 

previously imposed through orders. In addition, the final rule amended other emergency 

preparedness requirements, based on a comprehensive review of the NRC’s regulations and 

guidance. The requirements include: (1) enhance a licensee’s ability to prepare and take 

certain actions and protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency, (2) address, 

in part, security-related emergency preparedness issues identified after the terrorist events of 

September 11, 2001, (3) clarify regulations to effect consistent implementation among 

licensees, and (4) modify certain requirements to be more effective and efficient. The 

codification of several requirements previously captured through various regulatory tools, such 

as orders and generic communications, has provided greater clarity, and ensured staff has 

available a systematic process for reviewing and approving changes in emergency plans. 

As part of the final rule, staff ensured that the NRC will review, prior to implementation, any 

change that reduces the effectiveness of the EP. This review will occur through a license 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

amendment request in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.91. As a result, the staff 

now reviews such EP changes in a manner similar to all other licensing amendments. 

DISCUSSION: 

In 2011, the NRC modified the emergency preparedness requirements. This included 

modifications to 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4), which now states, in part: 

The changes to a licensee's emergency plan that reduce the effectiveness of the 

plan as defined in paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section may not be implemented 

without prior approval by the NRC. A licensee desiring to make such a change 

after February 21, 2012, shall submit an application for an amendment to its 

license. In addition to the filing requirements of §§ 50.90 and 50.91, the request 

must include all emergency plan pages affected by that change and must be 

accompanied by a forwarding letter identifying the change, the reason for the 

change, and the basis for concluding that the licensee's emergency plan, as 

revised, will continue to meet the requirements in appendix E to this part and, for 

nuclear power reactor licensees, the planning standards of § 50.47(b). 

These requirements provide for NRC review and approval prior to any changes reducing the 

effectiveness of the EP. The staff notes that any proposed changes that reduce the 

effectiveness of the EP still need to meet the NRC’s fundamental requirements for Emergency 

Preparedness and Planning of Appendix E and 10 CFR 50.47(b). As such, compliance with 

NRC’s emergency preparedness standards is assured both prior to any EP changes, and 

following approval of any changes. 

Over the past several years, the staff has gained considerable experience in implementing the 

Commission’s direction and the revised final rule. These reviews have become routine, and the 

proposed changes have typically been minor and appropriate. The staff notes that having the 

Director of NRR and other senior management involved in approving EP changes associated 

with a reduction in effectiveness significantly differs from the processes and controls the NRC 

employs for approval of other comparable licensing actions. The staff does not believe the 

potential safety implications of EP changes are any greater than those associated with other 

licensing actions, or that there is any reason to require a higher level of approval for EP 

changes than changes to other safety requirements. 

The staff notes that SECY-08-0024 and the resulting SRM-SECY-08-0024 were developed 

before the publication of the emergency preparedness rulemaking (SECY-11-0053, 

“Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations”), which codified the requirements 

that any EP changes that reduce the effectiveness must be submitted to the NRC through the 

license amendment process. The staff recognizes the considerable stakeholder interest in 

licensee emergency plans, especially those that might represent a decrease in effectiveness. 

The license amendment process affords all stakeholders an opportunity to provide comments 

and request a hearing. Because of the direction in the SRM, EP license amendments which 

result in a decrease in effectiveness must be approved by an authority no lower than the 

Director (or Deputy Office Director when acting for the Office Director) of NRR, in consultation 

with NSIR. This introduces additional layers of management review and approval, which is 

inconsistent with how staff approves other similar license amendments. The engagement of 

senior management in EP license amendments associated with a reduction in effectiveness 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

departs from the typical alignment of roles and responsibilities of staff, line management, and 

senior management. This also results in delays in the issuance of EP license amendments. 

The staff believes that processing EP changes as an exception to the NRC’s normal processes 

for licensing amendments decreases efficiency and results in a burden on staff resources, 

without a commensurate increase in public health and safety. 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The staff recommends that the Commission approve a change in the approval authority for EP 

license amendments which result in a decrease in effectiveness, other than relocation of an 

emergency operations facility 25 miles or more from the nuclear power plant site, to the NRR 

Branch Chief level. This change in authority would be consistent with the level of authority 

required for routine license amendments. NRR would continue to consult with NSIR on EP 

license amendments prior to their issuance. 

COORDINATION:

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

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

determined that concurrence is not needed since the resource implications are less than one 

full-time equivalent.

 /RA Michael R. Johnson for/ 

R. W. Borchardt

Executive Director

 for Operations
The Commissioners - 5 - 

departs from the typical alignment of roles and responsibilities of staff, line management, and 

senior management. This also results in delays in the issuance of EP license amendments. 

The staff believes that processing EP changes as an exception to the NRC’s normal processes 

for licensing amendments decreases efficiency and results in a burden on staff resources, 

without a commensurate increase in public health and safety. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The staff recommends that the Commission approve a change in the approval authority for EP 

license amendments which result in a decrease in effectiveness, other than relocation of an 

emergency operations facility 25 miles or more from the nuclear power plant site, to the NRR 

Branch Chief level. This change in authority would be consistent with the level of authority 

required for routine license amendments. NRR would continue to consult with NSIR on EP 

license amendments prior to their issuance. 

COORDINATION:

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

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

determined that concurrence is not needed since the resource implications are less than one 

full-time equivalent. 

 /RA Michael R. Johnson for/ 

R. W. Borchardt

Executive Director

 for Operations 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML12312A420 *via email 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 

OFFICE Tech Editor* NRR/DORL: PM NRR/DORL: LA* NRR/DORL: BC NRR/DORL: D 

NAME CHsu JLamb ABaxter MKhanna MEvans 

DATE 02/27/13 12/05/12 03/12/13 03/12/13 05/14/13 

OFFICE NSIR/DPR: D OGC NRR: D EDO 

NAME RLewis 

(MThaggard for) 

STurk ELeeds RBorchardt 

(MJohnson for)

DATE 05/17/13 06/17/13 07/12/13 07/25 /13