ML24019A196
| ML24019A196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/03/2025 |
| From: | Policy and Oversight Branch |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24019A195 | List: |
| References | |
| RG 1.101 Rev 7 DG-1423 | |
| Download: ML24019A196 (4) | |
Text
REGULATORY ANALYSIS DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1423 Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors (Proposed Revision 7 of Regulatory Guide 1.101, last updated June 2021)
- 1.
Statement of the Problem 1.1 Industry has identified that it may be more practical for members of an Emergency Response Organization to respond to an emergency remotely, rather than physically report to the plant. Currently, there is no guidance enabling responders to perform their functions from a remote location. In order to enable staff to perform their functions remotely, guidance is needed to identify which functions may be performed remotely, along with any training and evaluations to assure adequate performance, and any changes to a site emergency plan or procedures. In September 2024, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted a white paper, Enabling a Remote Response by Members of an Emergency Response Organization, Revision 1, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a possible solution.
1.2 Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.47(b)(4) requires, in part, that nuclear power reactor licensees use a standard emergency classification and action level scheme. NEI 99-01, Revision 6, Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors, was endorsed in March 2013 by the NRC as an acceptable method to meet this regulation. Since then, the industry has submitted, and the NRC staff has approved, numerous emergency preparedness frequently asked questions and scheme deviations from NEI 99-01, Revision 6. Having an approved method along with alternatives to the endorsed method has the potential to cause licensees difficulty in developing consistent site-specific emergency action level (EAL) schemes. This inconsistency could also impact the efficiency of license application reviews and emergency preparedness inspection activities. In September 2024, NEI submitted NEI 99-01, Revision 7, as a possible solution.
1.3 The NRC staff are seeing from licensees an inconsistent or inadequate justification for a 24-month review frequency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(t). The Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-23-0010, Staff Requirements-SECY-23-0010-Recommendation for Approval to Retire the Reactor Oversight Process Performance Indicator for Licensee Alert and Notification System Availability and to Develop a Performance Indicator for Emergency Response Facility and Equipment Readiness Availability, was issued September 1, 2023. In October 2024, NEI issued NEI 99-02, Revision 8, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline. With the issuance of these documents, licensees have the option to use the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) program to justify a 24-month review frequency. Additional clarification is needed to thoroughly explain this new option to licensee versus the approach the staff gave licensees in RG 1.101, Revision 6.
1.4 The NRC staff has identified recurring issues with the acceptability of licensee alert and notification system (ANS) design evaluation reports used in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3 that have been submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for prior approval. Specifically, the system design
2 evaluations do not include sufficient separation between the proposed backup and primary ANS methods to prevent a common-mode failure.
- 2.
Objective The objective of this regulatory analysis is to assess the need to update NRC guidance and provide licensees and applicants with an acceptable method to demonstrate compliance with emergency plan requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, including Appendix E.
- 3.
Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:
(1)
Do not revise RG 1.101.
(2)
Withdraw RG 1.101.
(3)
Revise RG 1.101 to address the current methods and procedures.
3.1 Alternative 1: Do Not Revise Regulatory Guide 1.101 Under this alternative, the NRC would not revise or issue additional guidance, and the current guidance would be retained. This alternative is considered the no-action alternative and provides a baseline condition from which any other alternatives will be assessed. If the NRC does not act, then there would not be any changes in costs or benefits to the public or the NRC. Licensees could continue to use the guidance in RG 1.101, Revision 6. However, the no-action alternative would not update the current regulatory guidance in RG 1.101 to reflect current industry guidance (if the NRC found it acceptable):
3.1.1.
Would not provide NRC acceptance of the implementation guidance in the NEI white paper concerning remote response to a plant emergency, potentially leaving licensees unsure of how to acceptably respond from a remote location.
3.1.2.
Would not endorse new methods proposed in NEI 99-01, Revision 7, potentially causing licensees difficulty in developing consistent site-specific EAL schemes.
3.1.3.
Would not provide guidance to licensees on how to provide sufficient separation between the proposed backup and primary ANS methods to prevent a common-mode failure.
3.1.4.
Would not provide licensees with new guidance in addition to the current RG 1.101, Revision 6 on the acceptable methods for justifying a 24-month audit frequency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(t).
3.2 Alternative 2: Withdraw Regulatory Guide 1.101 Under this alternative, the NRC would withdraw this regulatory guide. This would eliminate the problem identified above that RG 1.101, Revision 6, does not reflect the most updated guidance. Although the process of withdrawing RG 1.101 would not involve significant resources, withdrawing the RG would eliminate a readily available description of the methods the NRC staff considers acceptable for demonstrating compliance with emergency plan requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, including Appendix E. The results of this action could be
3 missed opportunities for licensees to benefit from operational experience, inconsistent implementation of requirements, and inadequate proposed methods to meet these regulatory requirements that could result in additional time for staff review of license applications.
3.3 Alternative 3: Revise Regulatory Guide 1.101 Under this alternative, the NRC would revise RG 1.101 to incorporate the latest information available to the NRC in the form of supporting guidance, practices, and lessons learned from operating experience.
This revision would:
3.3.1. Endorse the NEI white paper, Enabling a Remote Response by Members of an Emergency Response Organization, Revision 1, dated September 2024, to provide acceptable guidance to licensees that could enable emergency responders to respond more timely than physically reporting to their assigned emergency response facility.
3.3.2. Endorse NEI 99-01, Revision 7, Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors, dated September 2024. This guidance would provide detailed information for licensees to use when revising their site-specific EAL schemes. The revised guidance would reduce the effort needed to develop an EAL scheme license amendment request, improve the timeliness and efficiency of the NRCs review, and lower the cost of the review.
3.3.3 Add guidance related to licensee ANS Evaluation Reports to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3. Specifically, the guidance would explain how a licensee should describe the separation of the primary and backup methods of its ANS to prevent common-mode failures.
3.3.4 Add guidance on the methods the NRC finds acceptable to justify a 24-month frequency for 10 CFR 50.54(t) reviews. The NEI white paper, Implementing a 24-Month Frequency for Emergency Preparedness Program Reviews, issued November 2019 and endorsed in RG 1.101, Revision 6, is no longer necessary with the implementation of the new Emergency Response Facility and Equipment Readiness Performance Indicator approved by the Commission in SRM-SECY-23-0010. However, the revised RG 1.101 would clarify that licensees could use the guidance in the NEI white paper, if desired.
In revising RG 1.101, the NRC would ensure that the RG guidance available in this area remains current, robust, and accurate.
The impact of this alternative on the NRC would be the costs associated with preparing and issuing the RG revision. The impact on the public would be the voluntary costs associated with reviewing and providing comments to the NRC during the public comment period. The value to the NRC staff and NRC stakeholders would be the benefits associated with enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in using a common guidance document as the technical basis for license applications and other interactions between the NRC and its regulated entities.
4
- 4. Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC staff concludes that revision of RG 1.101 is warranted. A revised RG 1.101 will reflect the availability of new and, in some cases, improved information and enhance methods for licensees when developing and changing emergency plans for nuclear power plants. Licensees can use this guidance to ensure that emergency plans meet current requirements, which will help ensure timely review by the NRC staff.