Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 35d16973-484d-41cb-9b6c-d66cae8072ca
Document Type: srp
Title: EMERGENCY PLANNING
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0634/ML063410307.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 13
Section ID: 13.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ondence. Such correspondence might be appropriate, for example, in a case for which an existing letter of agreement is written in a way that is broad enough to cover an expanded site use, and does not need to be revised. The correspondence would identify this fact. 13.3-21 Revision 3 - March 2007 certifications. For an existing reactor site, the description of contacts and arrangements17 should clearly address the presence of an additional reactor (or reactors) at the site, and any impact that would have on governmental agency or private organization emergency planning responsibilities, including acknowledgment by the agencies or organizations of the proposed expanded responsibilities. If the applicant is unable to make arrangements with local, tribal, State, or Federal governmental agencies with emergency planning responsibilities, for whatever reason, the applicant should discuss its efforts to make such arrangements and describe any compensatory measures the applicant has taken or plans to take because of the lack of such arrangements. 11. The review consists of an evaluation of the emergency planning and preparedness information submitted by the applicant, using the foregoing acceptance criteria. The reviewer must determine whether the applicable acceptance criteria identified in Subsection II (above) have been satisfactorily met. The reviewer should identify any deficiencies, and use them to form the basis for requests for additional information (RAIs), discussed below. The reviewer should discuss proposed RAIs or position statements with the appropriate project manager and technical manager. Such further review may result in a determination that (a) the acceptance criterion in question does not apply; (b) the applicant has proposed an acceptable alternative; (c) the proposed alternative is unacceptable; or (d) no acceptable alternative has been proposed or identified. For deviations from the specific acceptance criteria, the reviewer should review the