ML113000162
| ML113000162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/04/2012 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC/NSIR/DPR |
| To: | Walters D Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Kahler, Robert, NSIR/DPR, 301-415-7528 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML113000162 (4) | |
Text
January 4, 2012 Douglas J. Walters, Vice President Regulatory Affairs Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUBJECT:
CONCERN REGARDING EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION STAFFING ANALYSES
Dear Mr. Walters:
I am writing in response to the issues you raised in your letter dated July 6, 2011, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11193A202), and as a follow-up to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) letter dated July 8, 2011, (ADAMS Accession No. ML111890167). Your letter concerned the proposed requirement in the draft emergency preparedness (EP) final rule to include a shift staffing analysis in each licensees emergency plan, and requested that the NRC staff consider changes to two related guidance documents. NRC staff has had a series of interactions with your staff to gain a clear understanding of the three general areas of concern identified in your letter. Below, I address each of these concerns, as well as the Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEIs) recommendations for revising the guidance documents.
Consistency with Regulatory Framework Issue: As stated in your letter: It is our view that the staffs decision to not review and approve material associated with a new emergency plan content requirement does not appear to be consistent with the existing regulatory framework. You also stated that [t]he NRC makes a reasonable assurance finding based on the content [of] the original emergency plan, i.e., the version approved by the staff as a basis for issuance of an operating license.
Staff Response: Following the NRC approval of the original emergency plan, licensees may, and often do, make changes to this original emergency plan without seeking NRC approval following the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q). Section 50.54(q) permits licensees to make changes to their emergency plan without prior application to, and approval by, the NRC provided that the changes do not reduce the effectiveness of the plan and that the plan, as changed, continues to meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The EP final rule introduces new regulations in the aforementioned 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E that require emergency plan elements that were not part of a licensees original NRC-approved emergency plan. The introduction of these new regulations will require a licensee to change their emergency plan in order to be in compliance. These changes are to be made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q). As such, a licensee will need to make an evaluation as to whether the change would not result in a reduction in effectiveness of the emergency plan and the plan as changed would continue to meet the regulations.
D. Walters The staff contends that 10 CFR 50.54(q) uses the characteristic reduction in effectiveness to exclude from the requirement to seek prior NRC approval those changes that would not reduce the effectiveness, and therefore maintain the staffs reasonable assurance determination, of the original emergency plan. Adding the staffing analysis to the licensees emergency plan per the new requirement will not, by itself, reduce the effectiveness of the licensees emergency plan and as such will not require prior NRC approval.
The NRC staffs decision to not review and approve the staffing analyses is consistent with the existing regulatory framework in that 10 CFR 50.54(q) is the process by which licensees are to incorporate the staffing analyses into their emergency plans. This conclusion has been included in the Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) (ADAMS Accession ML113010523) document that accompanies issuance of the EP final rule.
Application of 10 CFR 50.54(q)
Issue: As noted in your letter: as elaborated upon in Regulatory Guide 1.219, the evaluation of future changes to a licensees emergency plan will rely heavily on a review and understanding of the basis for the NRCs approval of the original plan and any previous changes to the plan. Further, your letter states: When applied to the incorporation of the staffing analysis into an emergency plan, this guidance places current operating licensees in an untenable position. Significantly, there is no prior NRC staff approval of an original plan staffing analysis because this is a new requirement. Likewise, there is no previous emergency plan change concerning a staffing analysis because this content was not previously required (i.e., there is no earlier change evaluation pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q)).
Staff Response: The staff does not agree that the guidance in RG 1.219 creates an untenable position with regard to the staffing analysis. The licensees current on-shift staffing level is part of the current emergency plan, licensing basis, and associated reasonable assurance finding related to staffing. Modifying the licensees emergency plan to include the staffing analysis, consistent with RG 1.219, should not reduce a licensees capability to perform an emergency planning function in the event of a radiological emergency because the analysis is only a process to determine the adequate on-shift staffing level. Therefore, comparing a licensees emergency plan, which has been amended solely to include a staffing analysis, with the emergency plan before the addition of the staffing analysis should show that adding the staffing analysis to the emergency plan will not result in a reduction in effectiveness of the emergency plan.
In summary, the guidance in RG 1.219 provides the approach for licensees to conduct a change evaluation for the incorporation of the on-shift staffing analysis into their emergency plans. The staff has provided guidance within the ISG that clarifies an acceptable method to conduct a change evaluation for the incorporation of the on-shift staffing analysis into their emergency plan.
Inspection Process Issue: In your letter, you stated that NEI understands that the review of on-shift Emergency Response Organization (ERO) staffing analyses will be an inspection function. We are concerned that using the inspection process will not result in consistent and reliable review outcomes. Because the results of these analyses will directly affect the staffing of the ERO
D. Walters and will form a baseline against which future emergency plan changes will be evaluated, NEI believes that systematic review and approval by the headquarters staff is vital to the creation and maintenance of a clear and reliable licensing basis in this area.
Staff Response: Beginning in 2012, NRC headquarters staff will review emergency plan changes and emergency action level changes made under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(3) and submitted under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(5). For the on-shift staffing analysis, this systematic review, by a core group of NRC headquarters staff, will be based on an assessment of the conduct of the analysis utilizing the guidance in the ISG in the absence of an acceptable alternative approach.
This same guidance will be available to licensees when performing the staffing analyses. No safety evaluation report will be issued. The staff currently intends to forward the results of the review to the applicable NRC region for inclusion in an inspection report. The emergency plan change reviews by a core group of NRC headquarters staff should address your concern regarding consistent and reliable review outcomes.
Please contact me or Robert Kahler at (301) 415-7528 or via email at Robert.Kahler@nrc.gov, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Robert J. Lewis, Director Division of Preparedness and Response Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response cc: S. Perkins-Grew, NEI D. Young, NEI
ML113000162 OFFICE NSIR/DPR OGC NSIR/DPR:DD NSIR/DPR:D NAME RKahler:BC B Jones MThaggard RLewis DATE 10/27/11 12/13/11 12/01/11 01/04/12