_______________ 

Rulemaking Issue 

(Notation Vote) 

May 31, 2016 SECY-16-0069 

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: RULEMAKING PLAN ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR SMALL 

MODULAR REACTORS AND OTHER NEW TECHNOLOGIES 

PURPOSE: 

The purpose of this paper is to request Commission approval of the schedule for a rulemaking 

about emergency preparedness (EP) for small modular reactors (SMRs) and other new 

technologies, such as non-light-water reactors (non-LWRs) and medical isotope production 

facilities. This rulemaking would develop EP requirements for these technologies that would be 

commensurate with the potential consequences to public health and safety. 

SUMMARY: 

In the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-15-0077, “Options for Emergency 

Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies,” dated August 4, 2015 

(Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML15216A492), the Commission directed the staff to proceed with rulemaking for the 

establishment of EP requirements for SMRs and other new technologies. The SRM also 

required the staff to provide for information, a plan and schedule for this rulemaking, which is 

detailed in this paper. Subsequently in SRM-SECY-15-0129, “Commission Involvement in Early 

Stages of Rulemaking,” dated February 3, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16034A441), the 

Commission approved institution of a requirement for a streamlined rulemaking plan in the form 

CONTACT: Arlon Costa, NRO/DEIA 

 301-415-6402 

SECY NOTE 

This SECY Paper, with the exception 

of enclosure 1, will be released to the 

public in 10 working days. 

The enclosure transmitted herewith 

contains Official Use Only – Sensitive 

Internal Information. When separated 

from the enclosure, this transmittal is 

decontrolled. 
The Commissioners 2 

of a SECY paper that would request Commission approval to initiate all rulemakings not already 

explicitly delegated to the staff as a staff-delegated rulemaking. As such, the staff is providing 

the plan and schedule for the subject rule in the format of the rulemaking plan approved by 

SRM-SECY-15-0129. 

Current regulations specify a plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) of 

about 10 miles and an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ of about 50 miles. The regulations 

further specify that the size of EPZs “may be determined on a case-by-case basis for gascooled nuclear reactors and for reactors with an authorized reactor power level less than 250 

MW thermal.”1 This rulemaking would develop a dose-based, consequence-oriented framework 

for future SMR applicants and licensees with respect to offsite EP that would reduce the need 

for exemptions related to regulations associated with large LWRs. The staff anticipates 

substantial public interest on this rulemaking because of the potential to alter the traditional 

offsite EP requirements for SMRs and other new technologies. The staff will use efficiencies 

gained from lessons learned during an ongoing decommissioning rulemaking addressing EP 

and an upcoming review of an early site permit (ESP) that intends to request exemptions to the 

EP requirements for reduced EPZs for an SMR facility. 

This rulemaking is estimated to be a medium priority rulemaking, but is also Commission 

directed (SRM-SECY-15-0077). This rulemaking would be a significant U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing initiative as part of NRC’s Strategic Plan in support of 

SMRs and other new technologies. The staff’s expectation is that the backfitting and issue 

finality regulations do not apply for this rulemaking because it would only apply to future 

applicants. 

The staff recommends an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of this 

rulemaking during the development of the regulatory basis, proposed rule, and final rule. The 

staff recognizes the public’s interest in EP issues and estimates that the project, starting with 

the completion of the regulatory basis phase ending with publication of the final rule, will take 

approximately 4 years. 

BACKGROUND:

In SRM-SECY-15-0129, the Commission approved institution of a requirement for a streamlined 

rulemaking plan in the form of a SECY paper that would request Commission approval to initiate 

all rulemakings not already explicitly delegated to the staff as a staff-delegated rulemaking. The 

Commission previously approved this rulemaking activity (SRM-SECY-15-0077). Accordingly, 

the staff requests approval of the schedule of the rulemaking pertaining to EP for SMRs and 

other new technologies, such as non-LWRs and medical isotope production facilities. EP plans 

currently required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.47(b) specify 

requirements to provide reasonable assurance that protective measures are taken during 

emergencies at nuclear power plants. EP complements accident prevention, mitigation 

features, and programs to provide defense-in-depth that best ensures no undue risk to public 

health and safety for a wide range of severe accidents. These EP regulations, guidance, and 

EPZ sizes, are developed for the existing fleet of large LWRs. 

 

1 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2). 
The Commissioners 3 

SECY-10-0034, “Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular 

Nuclear Reactor Designs” (ADAMS Accession No. ML093290268) discussed possible changes 

to EP requirements for SMRs. In SECY-11-0152, “Development of an Emergency Planning and 

Preparedness Framework for Small Modular Reactors” (ADAMS Accession No. ML112570439), 

the staff discussed its “intent to develop a technology-neutral, dose-based, 

consequence-oriented EP framework for SMR sites that takes into account the various designs, 

modularity and collocation, as well as the size of the emergency planning zone (EPZ).” In 

SECY-15-0077, “Options for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other 

New Technologies” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15037A176), the staff sought Commission 

direction to proceed with rulemaking for EP for SMRs and other new technologies. The 

Commission issued SRM-SECY-15-0077 directing the staff to proceed with rulemaking and to 

develop a plan and schedule to undertake the EP rulemaking for SMRs and other new 

technologies, such as non-LWRs and medical isotope production facilities. 

Current regulations specify a plume exposure pathway EPZ of about 10 miles and an ingestion 

exposure pathway EPZ of about 50 miles. They further identify that the size of EPZs “may be 

determined on a case-by-case basis for gas-cooled nuclear reactors and for reactors with an 

authorized reactor power level less than 250 MW thermal.”2 This rulemaking would evaluate 

these requirements with the option “to derive a dose-based, consequence-oriented rationale”3

that would eliminate the need for case-by-case EPZ exemptions for SMRs and other new 

technologies. 

DISCUSSION: 

Title 

Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies. 

Estimated Schedule

Initiate regulatory basis phase – August 2016 

Complete regulatory basis – March 2017 

Publish proposed rule – September 2018 

Publish final rule – April 2020 

 

Preliminary Priority 

The staff estimated that this activity would be a medium priority rulemaking using the Common 

Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) prioritization methodology. This rulemaking is estimated as 

a medium priority because: a) it would be a moderate contributor toward the NRC Strategic 

Plan safety goal and implement several of the Plan’s safety strategies; b) it would be a 

moderate contributor toward the Strategic Plan’s Regulatory Effectiveness strategies; c) it would 

significantly support an NRC licensing initiative with a future regulatory benefit, considering 

Commission and Congressional interest in SMRs and other new technologies; and d) there is 

substantial public interest on this topic. There is additional, relevant information supporting this 

 

2 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2). 

3 See discussions in SECY-11-0152 and SECY-15-0077. 
The Commissioners 4 

preliminary priority in the “Relationship of the Work to the NRC’s Strategic Plan” section of this 

paper.

Description and Scope 

The major objective of revising 10 CFR 50.47, Appendix E to Part 50, and associated 

regulations is to enhance regulatory effectiveness by providing a stable and predictable process 

for implementing EP for SMRs and new technologies. The revision will consider much smaller 

source terms expected in these designs when compared to large LWRs, as well as to 

considerations of different technological advancements in reactor designs and their associated 

design features impacting EP. The rulemaking would permit future applicants and licensees to 

demonstrate their safety case and technical basis to meet requirements of a consequence 

based approach for offsite EP and planning. 

The benefits of changing the regulations for EP for SMR and new technologies include the 

following: a) reduction in the number of exemption requests as compared to current regulations; 

b) reduction of EPZ sizes that could be smaller than what is currently required by 

10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), but reflective of offsite consequences and radiation risks to public health 

and safety; c) consistency in regulatory applicability in the review of EP plans in accordance to 

10 CFR 50.47; and d) potential use of a performance-based EP regimen. 

 

Relationship of the Work to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Strategic Plan 

The NRC staff expects that the rulemaking will have no negative impact on the safety goal of 

the NRC’s Strategic Plan. The most significant impact of the intended rulemaking to revise 

10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E would be the enhancement of regulatory effectiveness by 

providing a stable and predictable process for implementing new EP requirements for SMRs 

and new technologies. This approach supports the principles of good regulation, including 

openness, clarity, and reliability. 

The staff notes that a rulemaking effort, “Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power 

Reactors,” is currently ongoing, as directed by the Commission in SRM-SECY-14-0118, 

“Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning 

Requirements” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14364A111). The EP component of the ongoing 

decommissioning rulemaking and future EP SMR rulemaking share similar elements. For 

example, the two rulemakings share a premise that dedicated offsite radiological EP programs 

can be reduced or are not needed, if accident analyses show that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency protective action guides are not exceeded off site. The staff plans to 

consider public comments received on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for 

the decommissioning rulemaking, which addresses similar changes to EP and planning 

regulations for decommissioning reactors. The questions in the ANPR for the decommissioning 

rulemaking address many of the same issues expected in the SMR rulemaking. The staff will 

supplement the comments from the ANPR with additional outreach efforts to stakeholders in the 

development of the EP for SMR and other new technologies rulemaking. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has submitted an ESP application early on 

May 12, 2016. The ESP will seek a plant parameter envelope ESP for an SMR at the Clinch 

River site in Oak Ridge, TN. TVA included proposals in its ESP application for reduced EPZ 

sizes, for which it requests exemptions to the EP requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic 
The Commissioners 5 

Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” and in 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” Subpart A, “Early Site Permits.” The 

staff will use lessons learned from the ESP review to inform the development of the SMR EP 

rulemaking. 

Substantial public interest is expected on this rulemaking because of the potential to 

significantly reduce or eliminate the traditional offsite EP requirements for SMRs and other new 

technologies. The staff intends to hold public meetings in concert with the publication of the 

proposed rule and revisions of guidance, as appropriate. The meetings will enable staff to 

engage stakeholders, receive feedback, and answer questions regarding the proposed rule and 

guidance. The staff is planning for an extended comment period on the proposed rule. In 

addition to publication in the Federal Register, the rulemaking and any proposed revision of 

guidance documents will also be placed on the NRC's web site to enhance public dialogue. 

The staff plans to draw upon the previously discussed decommissioning rulemaking and TVA’s 

ESP application review to inform the development of the technical basis, rule language, and 

guidance documents. 

The staff intends to continue interaction with the Federal Radiological Preparedness 

Coordinating Committee to discuss issues of mutual interest to the NRC, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and other government organizations. The staff does not plan to form a 

rulemaking steering committee, but will consider the need for a steering committee to resolve 

rulemaking issues, if any arise. 

Cost and Benefits 

The proposed action is estimated to involve a medium magnitude of costs, largely due to 

developing a regulatory basis for and guidance supporting the methodology for demonstrating 

the appropriate EPZ size and EP plan for varying source terms and designs. The proposed 

action is estimated to provide the following benefits: a) reduction in the number of exemption 

requests as compared to current regulations; b) reduction of EPZ sizes that could be smaller 

than what is currently required by 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) but ensure adequate protection of public 

health and safety; c) consistency in regulatory applicability in the review of EP plans in 

accordance to 10 CFR 50.47; and d) potential use of a performance-based EP regimen. 

Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

This rulemaking would have a net positive impact on cumulative effects of regulation because: 

a) it would potentially reduce regulatory burden for applicants for SMRs and other new 

technologies, b) it is currently anticipated that there are no critical skill sets or other ongoing 

NRC activities that would significantly impact the implementation of the proposed change, and 

c) the staff plans to hold public meetings at several key steps in the process and provide an 

extended public comment period. 

Agreement State Considerations 

There are no Agreement State considerations for this rulemaking. 
The Commissioners 6 

Backfitting and Issue Finality 

The staff’s expectation is that the backfitting and issue finality regulations do not apply. The 

proposed revisions to EP requirements would not represent backfitting because they would 

contain new requirements to design, construct, and operate new facilities. The intended rule 

defining the new EP regulations and guidance for SMRs and other technologies such as 

non-LWR designs would be in place before an applicant applies for a license. The backfitting 

and issue finality regulations do not protect current or future applicants from the imposition of 

new or different requirements. Therefore, the staff will not be required to prepare a backfit 

analysis for the proposed rule.

Guidance 

The staff estimates that one or more new guidance document(s) will be developed in parallel with 

the rulemaking. Current guidance for operating reactors would likely remain unchanged. 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Review 

The staff requests Commission direction on whether the Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) review is warranted. The staff believes that this rulemaking falls within the 

scope of the ACRS Charter and therefore ACRS review is warranted. The staff recommends 

ACRS review during the development of the regulatory basis, proposed rule, and final rule. 

Committee to Review Generic Requirements Review 

The staff does not believe the Committee to Review Generic Requirements review is necessary 

because the backfit regulations do not apply, as described in the “Backfitting and Issue Finality” 

section of this paper. 

Analysis of Legal Matters 

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has reviewed the rulemaking plan regarding a 

rulemaking that considers a dose-based, consequence-oriented approach to EP for SMRs and 

other new technologies, such as non-LWRs and medical isotope production facilities. This 

rulemaking would eliminate the need for case-by-case EPZ exemptions for SMRs and other 

new technologies, such as non-LWRs and medical isotope production facilities. The 

Commission approved this undertaking in SRM-SECY-15-0077. 

The regulations and associated guidance described in the rulemaking plan would not constitute 

backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) because they would apply to specific new 

technologies only and not to currently licensed large LWRs. For this reason, the staff will not 

need to conduct a backfitting assessment for the proposed rule. The proposed rule will require 
The Commissioners 7 

preparation of an environmental assessment, as it appears that there are no categorical 

exclusions in 10 CFR 51.22(c) that would apply to this rulemaking. 

The determination of whether the rule is a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act will 

be made during the development of the regulatory analysis prepared for the proposed rule. 

The proposals in this plan would require licensees to generate and maintain records related to 

their EP operations. Accordingly, the rule would require the Office of Management and Budget 

review and approval for the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

OGC has concluded that there are no known bases for legal objection to the rulemaking. 

COMMITMENT: 

If the Commission approves the schedule for the rulemaking, the staff will add the rule to the 

CPR during the next budget formulation cycle. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

The NRC staff recommends that the Commission approve the schedule for the rulemaking 

pertaining to EP for SMRs and other new technologies, such as non-LWRs and medical isotope 

production facilities. 

The staff also recommends ACRS review during the development of the regulatory basis, 

proposed rule, and final rule. 

RESOURCES: 

The enclosure includes an estimate of the resources needed to complete this rulemaking. 

Resource estimates in the enclosure are not publicly available and would be used to address 

the broad issues outlined in SECY-11-0152, SECY-15-0077, and SRM-SECY-15-0077. 
The Commissioners 8 

COORDINATION: 

OGC has no legal objection to this action. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has 

reviewed this paper and has no concerns with the estimated resources in the enclosure. 

 /RA/ 

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Resources 
The Commissioners 8 

COORDINATION: 

OGC has no legal objection to this action. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has 

reviewed this paper and has no concerns with the estimated resources in the enclosure. 

 /RA/ 

 

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Resources 

SRM-S15-0077 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML16020A433 * via Email SECY-012

OFFICE PM:NRO/DEIA BC:NRO/DEIA DD:NRO/DEIA Tech Editor* 

NAME ACosta DTJackson MMayfield 

(DAJackson for) JDougherty 

DATE 01/20/16 01/21//16 01/28/16 02/02/16 

OFFICE D:NSIR OCFO* OGC* PMDA 

NAME BHolian MWylie (MKaplan for) PMoulding 

(MCapentier for) FMiller 

DATE 02/10/16 02/23/16 04/27/16 03/17/16 

OFFICE D:NRO EDO 

NAME JUhle VMcCree 

DATE 05/20/16 05/ 31 /16 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY