Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: b647b09e-9948-474b-8b4a-d2e08837ffa5
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Guidance on Making Changes to Emergency Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors (Rev. 1)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15054A370.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.219
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
e response organizations (OROs) are considered successful upon notification of the first ORO. However, the NRC expects the licensee to have the capability to notify all OROs within 15 minutes to be in compliance with regulations. Accordingly, the licensee cannot use performance indicators and their guidance as the sole basis for concluding whether a proposed change would reduce the effectiveness of its emergency plan; however, they may be useful in informing such determinations at operating reactors. 1.8 Role of Margin in the 10 CFR 50.54(q) Change Process a. The 10 CFR 50.54(q) change process establishes a two-factor test to determine when a change to an emergency plan requires prior NRC approval. First, the test assesses whether the emergency plan, as modified, would continue to comply with the planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) or the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Second, the test assesses whether the proposed change would reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plan. These two tests are separate and distinct. If the licensee does not meet either test, it must obtain prior NRC approval. Meeting the first test does not imply that the licensee has met the second test, nor does meeting the second test imply that the licensee has met the first test. b. During licensing, a licensee may have committed to a greater level of capabilities, methods, and resources than what regulation and guidance had explicitly required and subsequently may seek to reduce that level of commitment. Because the original plan “exceeded” the explicit regulatory requirement, the licensee may believe that there is enough “margin” to reduce its commitment and still comply with the regulatory requirements. However, this rationale only considers the first test factor; the second test factor still needs to be evaluated. (1) If the licensee’s original commitment resulted from a conservative operating philosophy, the licensee may be able to show that the reduction in