Regulatory Analysis and Backfit Analysis: Final Rulemaking: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations - 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52

Regulatory Analysis and Backfit Analysis
Final Rulemaking:
Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations
(10 CFR Parts 50 and 52)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
August 4, 2011

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page i

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1
Statement of the Problem and Reasons for the Rulemaking ................................................... 4
1.2
Background ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1
Current Regulations Governing EP (10 CFR Part 50) ......................................................... 4
1.2.2
Commission Orders ............................................................................................................. 4
1.2.3
NRC Bulletin 2005-02 .......................................................................................................... 5
1.2.4
NRC Guidance Documents .................................................................................................. 6
1.3
Regulatory Objectives ............................................................................................................... 6
2.
Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches ............................................... 7
3.
Evaluation of Benefits and Costs .................................................................................................. 8
3.1
Identification of Affected Attributes ........................................................................................... 8
3.2
Analytical Methodology ............................................................................................................. 9
3.2.1
Baselines for Analysis ........................................................................................................ 10
3.2.2
EP Programs and Program Characteristics ....................................................................... 10
3.2.3
Incremental Requirements in the Final Rule ...................................................................... 11
3.2.4
Other Data and Assumptions ............................................................................................. 11
4.
Results ......................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1
Benefits and Costs Under the Main Analysis .......................................................................... 12
4.1.1
Protection of Onsite Personnel .......................................................................................... 16
4.1.2
Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action ...................................................................... 17
4.1.3
Challenging Drills and Exercises........................................................................................ 18
4.1.4
Evacuation Time Estimate Updating .................................................................................. 19
4.1.5
Licensee Coordination with Offsite Response Organizations ............................................ 20
4.1.6
On-Shift Staffing Analysis .................................................................................................. 21
4.1.7
Emergency Response Organization Augmentation and Alternative Facilities ................... 22
4.1.8
Amended Emergency Plan Change Process..................................................................... 23
4.1.9
Emergency Declaration Timeliness ................................................................................... 25
4.1.10 Emergency Operations Facility – Performance-Based Approach ..................................... 26
4.1.11 Backup Means for ANS ...................................................................................................... 27
4.2
Sensitivity Analysis – Pre-Order Baseline............................................................................... 28
4.3
Backfit Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 32
4.4
Safety Goal Evaluation............................................................................................................ 39
4.5
CRGR Results ......................................................................................................................... 39
5.
Decision Rationale....................................................................................................................... 41
5.1
Regulatory Analysis ........................................................................................................... 41
5.2
Backfit Analysis .................................................................................................................. 41
6.
Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 42
6.1
Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 42
6.2
Impacts on Other Requirements ........................................................................................ 42
Appendix A

Regulatory Analysis Assumptions, Inputs, and Results Per Facility, by Regulatory
Initiative

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 1

Executive Summary
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is enhancing the current emergency
preparedness (EP) regulations pertaining to nuclear reactors. The final rulemaking:
(1) codifies EP requirements imposed by Commission order after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, as modified based upon experience and insights gained by the NRC
during implementation, (2) codifies certain EP and response enhancements discussed
within NRC Bulletin 2005-02, and (3) adds several new requirements that resulted from NRC
staff review of EP regulations and guidance. The rulemaking implements changes
addressing 11 aspects of EP. All of these changes affect power reactor licensees, and one
affects non-power reactors.
The analysis presented in this document examines the benefits and costs of the new EP
requirements relative to the baseline of current regulations, relevant orders, and voluntary
actions on the part of industry. As a sensitivity analysis, the document also examines the
benefits and costs of the final rulemaking relative to the baseline of current regulations only
(excluding the Order, NRC Bulletin 2005-02, and industry voluntary actions). The key
findings of the analysis are as follows:
•

Total Cost to Industry (including Backfits). The final rule is expected to result in a
total one-time cost across all nuclear power plant sites and non-power reactors of
approximately $32.0 million, followed by total annual costs on the order of
$2.6 million. The total present value of these costs is $63.3 million (using a 7percent discount rate) and $80.4 million (using a 3-percent discount rate) over the
next 30 years. Almost all of the estimated costs to industry qualify as backfits (see
Section 4.3).

•

Average Cost per Site for Power Reactors. The average nuclear power plant site,
which may include multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately
$485,000 followed by annual costs of approximately $40,000.

•

Average Cost per Site for Non-Power Reactors. The average non-power reactor will
incur a one-time cost of approximately $14,000. The final rule will not impose any
annual costs on non-power reactors.

•

Value of Benefits Not Reflected Quantitatively. With the exception of some direct
monetary savings to industry, the cost figures shown above do not reflect the value
of the benefits of the final rule. These benefits are evaluated qualitatively in
Section 4.1.

•

Costs to NRC. The rule is expected to result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $598,000, followed by annual costs of approximately $192,000. The
total present value of these NRC costs is $2.9 million (using a 7-percent discount
rate) and $4.2 million (using a 3-percent discount rate).

•

Costs to Other Government Agencies. The rule is expected to result in a one-time
cost to other government agencies of approximately $3.5 million, followed by annual
costs of approximately $316,000. The total present value of these other government

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 2

costs is $7.3 million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $9.4 million (using a 3percent discount rate).
•

Decision Rationale. The rule is cost-justified because the regulatory initiatives for
increased and consistent EP measures enable emergency personnel to respond
earlier and more effectively to emergency events at nuclear power plants, increasing
the public health and safety.

The final rule also will apply to any new reactors brought online after promulgation of the
final rule, including Watts Bar Unit 2 as well as any units that would be built under the new
reactor applications that NRC has received to date. Because EP program costs are
primarily a site-based function, rather than a reactor-based function, the regulatory analysis
and backfit analysis reflect costs associated with Watts Bar Unit 2 as well as those units
covered by the new applications that (like Watts Bar Unit 2) would co-locate new reactors
with currently operating reactors. For the new applications that would place new reactors at
sites that are not co-located with operating reactors, this analysis estimates that one-time
and annual impacts will be less than or equal to the corresponding impacts for operating
reactors (i.e., because the development of EP plans for the new sites will not require that
existing plans be analyzed and reworked). However, the quantitative results do not reflect
any additional incremental cost for the non-co-located reactors due to the uncertainty
associated with when and if these facilities actually will be licensed and operated.
Pre-Order Baseline Sensitivity Analysis. The regulatory analysis contains a sensitivity
analysis that, like the main analysis, estimates the incremental costs of the final rule, but it
assumes an alternative baseline consisting of only the regulations that were in effect prior to
(1) issuance of NRC Order EA-02-26 on February 25, 2002, and (2) voluntary industry
actions initiated in response to NRC Bulletin 2005-02. Relative to the pre-order baseline,
the final rule is expected to result in a total one-time cost across all nuclear power plant sites
of approximately $59.0 million, followed by total annual costs on the order of $2.6 million.
The total present value of these costs is $90.3 million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and
$107.4 million (using a 3-percent discount rate) over the next 30 years (see Section 4.2).

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Abbreviations
ANS
CFR
CRGR
DHS
EAL
EOF
EP
EPZ
ERO
ETE
FEMA
ICM
JTA
NEI
NRC
ORO
SRM
RIS

Alert and Notification System
Code of Federal Regulations
Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Department of Homeland Security
Emergency Action Level
Emergency Operations Facility
Emergency Preparedness
Emergency Planning Zone
Emergency Response Organization
Evacuation Time Estimate
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Interim Compensatory Measure
Job Task Analysis
Nuclear Energy Institute
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Offsite Response Organization
Staff Requirements Memorandum
Regulatory Issue Summary

Page 3

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

1.

Page 4

Introduction

This document presents a regulatory analysis of enhancements to the emergency
preparedness (EP) requirements as set forth by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, “Domestic
Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities” and Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and
Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The final rule revises provisions contained in Sections
50.47, 50.54, and 52.79, and Appendix E to Part 50. This introduction is divided into three
sections. Section 1.1 states the problem and the reasons for the rulemaking, Section 1.2
provides background information, and Section 1.3 discusses regulatory objectives related to
adoption of the final rule.
1.1

Statement of the Problem and Reasons for the Rulemaking

Following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC staff evaluated the EP
planning basis given the resulting threat environment and concluded that it remains valid.
However, the NRC staff recognized that security events differ from accidental events and
that the EP regulations and guidance could be enhanced in this and other respects. In
addition, NRC staff reviewed existing EP regulations and guidance and identified
clarifications and enhancements to the regulations that recognize the benefits of advances
in communication technologies and lessons learned through EP program implementation.
While licensees have implemented significant enhancements to their EP programs in
response to the February 25, 2002, Commission Order, NRC Bulletin 2005-02, and various
NRC generic communications, the current regulations do not encompass these elements.
EP regulations and guidance could be enhanced to better reflect the security elements
implemented in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, advances in technology,
and lessons learned. Therefore, the NRC is revising its regulations to codify the EP
enhancements.
1.2

Background

1.2.1

Current Regulations Governing EP (10 CFR Part 50)

Part 50 codifies a set of EP planning standards in § 50.47(b) with supporting requirements in
Appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization
Facilities,” to 10 CFR Part 50.
1.2.2

Commission Orders

The Commission imposed several security orders on all operating power reactor licensees
following September 11, 2001. On February 25, 2002, the NRC issued Order EA-02-26,
“Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures (ICMs),” to all license holders for
the operating commercial power reactors in the United States. Among other things, the
Order required licensees to implement ICMs for the present threat level and take actions
such as:
•

Review the security and emergency plans to maximize compatibility,

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

•
•
•
•
1.2.3

Page 5

Assess the adequacy of staffing plans at emergency response facilities, and for
licensees with an onsite emergency operations facility (EOF), identify alternative
facilities capable of supporting emergency response,
Develop plans, procedures and training regarding notification (including responding
employees), activation, and coordination between the site and offsite response
organizations (OROs),
Conduct a review to ensure that responders are not assigned collateral duties that
would prevent effective emergency response, and
Implement site-specific Emergency Action Levels (EALs) to provide an anticipatory
response to a credible threat.
NRC Bulletin 2005-02

The NRC issued Bulletin 2005-02, “Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for
Security-Based Events,” to obtain information regarding changes nuclear power reactor
licensees made or were planning to make regarding security-based EP program capabilities
and to evaluate how consistently such changes had been implemented. Specifically, the
Bulletin focused on gathering information from licensees on five EP topic areas: securitybased emergency classification levels and EALs; NRC notifications; onsite protective
measures; emergency response organization (ERO) augmentation; and drill and exercise
programs.
Nuclear plant licensees all responded that they had implemented, or planned to implement,
the types of enhancements outlined in NRC Bulletin 2005-02. Further, the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) developed a white paper titled “Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness
Programs for Hostile Action,” issued May 2005 (revised November 18, 2005). The NRC
staff endorsed this guidance in Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2006-12, dated July 19,
2006, as an acceptable implementation methodology for the program enhancements
discussed in NRC Bulletin 2005-02. However, these enhancements are voluntary. The
NRC currently does not regard these voluntary actions in the licensing basis of the plants.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

1.2.4

Page 6

NRC Guidance Documents

NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (herein
referred to as NUREG-0654) is the joint NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) guidance that provides a basis for NRC licensees and State and local governments
to develop radiological emergency plans and improve EP. It also is used by reviewers to
determine the adequacy of State, local, and nuclear power plant licensee emergency plans
and preparedness. NUREG-0654 provides guidance for each of the planning standards
found in 10 CFR 50.47(b). Regulatory Guide 1.101, “Emergency Planning and
Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors,” Revision 2, issued October 1981, endorsed
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1. Regulatory Guide 1.101 provides guidance to
licensees and applicants on methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the
standards in 10 CFR 50.47 that must be met in onsite and offsite emergency response
plans. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is
not required. Licensees and applicants may propose methods and solutions different from
those specified in the guides if they provide a basis for the findings required for the issuance
of a license by the Commission.
1.3

Regulatory Objectives

The NRC’s objectives for the current rulemaking are to (1) codify EP requirements imposed
by Commission order after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as modified based
upon experience and insights gained by the NRC during implementation, (2) codify certain
EP and response enhancements discussed within NRC Bulletin 2005-02, and (3) add
several new requirements that resulted from NRC staff review of EP regulations and
guidance.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

2.

Page 7

Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative
Approaches

Prior to the rulemaking, the NRC staff conducted an extensive review of EP regulations and
guidance and developed numerous recommendations. The NRC staff presented the
analysis and recommendations to the Commission in SECY-06-0200, “Results of the
Review of Emergency Preparedness Regulations and Guidance,” dated September 20,
2006. SECY-06-0200 also prioritized the NRC staff’s recommendations using specified
criteria. The Commission, in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated January 8,
2007, approved a rulemaking effort for the various EP initiatives contained in
SECY-06-0200. In SECY-07-0182, “Semi-annual Update on the Status of Emergency
Preparedness Activities,” the NRC staff committed to first conduct rulemaking on the issues
identified as high-priority in SECY-06-0200.
Based on the preliminary analysis described above, the rulemaking will revise 10 CFR
50.47, 50.54, and 52.79, and Appendix E to Part 50 to incorporate a total of 11 regulatory
initiatives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Protection of onsite personnel
EALs for hostile action
Challenging drills and exercises
Evacuation time estimate (ETE) updating
Licensee coordination with OROs
On-shift staffing analysis
ERO augmentation and alternative facilities
Amended emergency plan change process
Emergency declaration timeliness
EOF – performance-based approach
Backup means for alert and notification systems (ANS)

The rulemaking will allow the NRC to achieve enhancements to EP at nuclear power plants
as well as greater regulatory consistency across licensees.
The alternative to these initiatives is the “no-action alternative.” Under the no-action
alternative, NRC would not amend the current regulations regarding EP at nuclear power
plant sites. Licensees would continue to comply with the Commission’s Order and voluntary
commitments from the generic communications. This option would avoid certain costs that
the final rule will impose. However, taking no action would not enhance EP based on recent
experience, would not enhance regulatory efficiency, and, moreover, would present a
problem for establishing appropriate EP measures for new reactors that did not receive the
Commission Order or generic communications.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

3.

Page 8

Evaluation of Benefits and Costs

This section examines the benefits and costs expected to result from this rulemaking, and
are presented in two subsections. Section 3.1 identifies attributes that are expected to be
affected by the rulemaking. Section 3.2 describes how benefits and costs have been
analyzed.
3.1

Identification of Affected Attributes

This section identifies the factors within the public and private sectors that the regulatory
alternatives (discussed in Section 2) are expected to affect. These factors are classified as
“attributes” using the list of potential attributes provided by NRC in Chapter 5 of its
Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook. 1 Affected attributes include the
following:
•

Public Health (Accident) – The final rule will reduce the risk that public health will be
affected by radiological releases resulting from an emergency.

•

Occupational Health (Accident) – The final rule will reduce the risk that occupational
health will be affected by radiological releases resulting from emergencies and by
some hostile action.

•

Industry Implementation – The final rule will require licensees to make facility
modifications and to revise their emergency plans and procedures, among other
implementation activities.

•

Industry Operation – The final rule will require licensees to conduct additional EP
activities beyond those currently being conducted. For example, licensees must
track compliance over time with NRC’s challenging drill and exercise requirements.

•

NRC Implementation – Under the final rule, NRC must develop or revise guidance
and inspection procedures as a result of the new requirements.

•

NRC Operation – The final rule will require the NRC to review biennial exercise
scenarios and updated ETEs for each site on an ongoing basis.

•

Other government – The final rule will result in one-time and annual costs to other
government agencies. FEMA and State and local government agencies coordinate
with NRC and licensees on EP activities. The final rule may require these other
government agencies to review and revise guidance and procedures, and to
conduct trainings.

•

Regulatory Efficiency – The final rule will result in enhanced regulatory efficiency
through regulatory and compliance improvements.

1

Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook, Final Report, NUREG/BR-0184, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, January 1997.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

•

Off-Site Property – The final rule will reduce the risk that off-site property will be
affected by radiological releases resulting from emergencies.

•

On-Site Property – The final rule will reduce the risk that on-site property will be
affected by radiological releases resulting from emergencies and some hostile
action.

Page 9

Attributes that are not expected to be affected under any of the rulemaking options include
the following: safeguards and security considerations; occupational health (routine); public
health (routine); environmental considerations; general public; improvements in knowledge;
and antitrust considerations.
3.2

Analytical Methodology

This section describes the process used to evaluate benefits and costs associated with the
various regulatory options. The benefits of the rule include any desirable changes in
affected attributes (e.g., monetary savings, improved safety resulting from new physical
protection requirements) while the costs include any undesirable changes in affected
attributes (e.g., monetary costs, increased exposures).
The analysis evaluates several attributes on a quantitative basis. (These include industry
implementation, industry operation, NRC implementation, NRC operation, other
government.) Quantitative analysis requires a baseline characterization of the universe,
including factors such as the number of licensees affected, the nature of the activities
currently being conducted, and the types of new or modified systems and procedures that
licensees will implement, or will no longer implement, as a result of the rule. In fact,
however, licensees may respond to the rule in different ways depending on their own
licensee-specific characteristics, such as (1) the physical characteristics of their sites, (2) the
current contents of their emergency plans, (3) the organizational and managerial
characteristics of their operations, (4) their approaches toward meeting new performancebased criteria, and (5) the characteristics of the local communities and their relationship with
the local communities. Sections 3.2.1–3.2.4 describe the most significant analytical data
and assumptions used in the quantitative analysis of these attributes. Additional details
regarding the calculations used in the analysis are presented in an appendix to the analysis.
The analysis relies on a primarily qualitative (rather than quantitative) evaluation of several
of the affected attributes (public health, occupational health, offsite property, and onsite
property) due to the difficulty in quantifying the impact of the current rulemaking. 2 These
attributes are affected by the regulatory options through the associated increases in
effectiveness of emergency plans and emergency response activities. Quantification of any
of these attributes would require estimation of factors such as (1) the frequency of various
types of emergencies and emergency events, (2) the radiological consequences of such
emergencies, and (3) pre-rule and post-rule impacts associated with such emergencies and
hostile action.

2

The regulatory efficiency attribute also is evaluated qualitatively, by definition. See NRC’s Regulatory Analysis
Technical Evaluation Handbook, Section 5.5.14.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

3.2.1

Page 10

Baselines for Analysis

This regulatory analysis measures the incremental impacts of the final rule relative to a
“baseline,” which reflects anticipated behavior in the event that the final regulation is not
imposed. The primary baseline used in this analysis assumes full licensee compliance with
existing NRC requirements, including current regulations, relevant orders, and voluntary
industry actions initiated in response to NRC Bulletin 2005-02. Section 4.1 presents the
estimated incremental costs and savings of the final rule relative to this baseline. Unless
otherwise noted, the estimated costs and savings presented in this document reflect this
baseline and are referred to as the “main analysis.”
The NRC staff also has prepared a sensitivity analysis as part of this regulatory analysis, in
accordance with the agency’s regulatory analysis guidelines. The sensitivity analysis, like
the main analysis, estimates the incremental savings and costs of the final rule, but it
assumes an alternative baseline consisting of only the regulations that were in effect before
(1) issuance of NRC Order EA-02-26 on February 25, 2002, and (2) voluntary industry
actions initiated in response to NRC Bulletin 2005-02. This analysis is referred to as the
“pre-order baseline analysis,” and its results appear in Section 4.2.
3.2.2

EP Programs and Program Characteristics

The analysis models 65 sites administering a total of 104 operating power reactors. It
assumes that incremental costs and savings will accrue to sites independent of the number
of reactor facilities located at each site. It also assumes that the manner in which operating
reactors comply with current EP requirements is substantially similar (except as indicated in
Appendix A) and that all operating nuclear power reactors are in full compliance with the
applicable baseline requirements. As a result, the analysis applies the same average cost
per activity to each site, even though in reality some sites will incur higher or lower costs.
Each operating licensee is assumed to apply for and receive a single 20-year license
extension. Based on the extended license expiration dates, the analysis calculates the
average remaining operating life across all reactors as 30 years. Therefore, costs and
savings are estimated for the 65 reactor sites over a 30-year period, with each year’s costs
or savings discounted back at a 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate, in accordance with
NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.” (See Section 4.1 for these results.)
The final rule will also apply to any new reactors brought online after promulgation of the
final rule. Watts Bar Unit 2 is assumed to be one such reactor. In addition, NRC has
received applications to build other nuclear power reactors. For Watts Bar Unit 2 and the
new applications that (like Watts Bar Unit 2) would co-locate new reactors with currently
operating reactors, this analysis assumes that there will be no significant additional
incremental cost or saving incurred (because EP program costs are primarily a site-based
function, rather than a reactor-based function). For the new applications that would place
new reactors at sites that are not co-located with operating reactors, this analysis estimates
that one-time and annual impacts will be less than or equal to the corresponding impacts for
operating reactors (i.e., because the development of EP plans for the new sites will not
require that existing plans be analyzed and reworked). Nevertheless, Section 4 does not
reflect any additional incremental cost for the non-co-located reactors due to the uncertainty
associated with when and if these facilities actually will be licensed and operated.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 11

The final rule also makes a conforming change to Part 52 that affects combined license
applicants. The conforming change points applicants to the EP requirements in Part 50,
Appendix E, instead of the EP requirements in Section 50.34(f). This change will have a
cost impact only for combined license applications that have been or will have been
submitted prior to promulgation of this final rule. Specifically, applications may cite Section
50.34(f) as the regulatory basis for some of the EP features disclosed in the application.
Under the final rule, these applications instead will need to cite Part 50, Appendix E as the
regulatory basis. NRC estimates that the cost impact associated with this revision will be
insignificant relative to the overall cost of the final rule.
In addition, one of the final rule’s regulatory initiatives will apply to non-power reactor
licensees. 3 As a result, the analysis also models the cost incurred by the 32 operating nonpower reactors.
3.2.3

Incremental Requirements in the Final Rule

The NRC evaluated each of the 11 regulatory initiatives contained in the final rule relative to
the applicable baselines described in Section 3.2.1. Based on this analysis, the NRC
developed equations to estimate costs and savings using available data, augmented by
assumptions when necessary. Appendix A documents this analysis, including the specific
equations used to quantify costs and savings. The purpose of Appendix A is to show the
per site cost assumptions used for this analysis.
3.2.4

Other Data and Assumptions

Information on operating non-power reactors, power reactors, and shutdown dates has been
taken from NUREG-1350, Vol. 21, NRC Information Digest, 2009-2010 Edition. To the
extent practical, quantitative information (e.g., costs and savings) and qualitative information
(e.g., the nature and magnitude of impacts) on attributes affected by the rule have been
developed by NRC staff. The analysis also considered input provided by stakeholders at
public meetings.
The analysis assumes that the final rule becomes effective in August 2011, and that any
one-time implementation costs are incurred during the first year. Ongoing (annual) costs of
operation are assumed to begin in 2012, and are modeled on an annual cost basis. Costs
and savings are expressed in 2010 dollars.

3

Amended Emergency Plan Change Process applies to both nuclear power reactor and non-power reactor
licensees. See Section 4.1.8 and Appendix A.8.b.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

4.

Page 12

Results

This section presents the analytical results which are organized into five separate sections:
•

Section 4.1 presents results on the benefits and costs of the rule as a whole under
the main analysis, as well as disaggregated results for each of the 11 regulatory
initiatives that comprise the rule.

•

Section 4.2 presents the results of the analysis under the pre-order baseline.

•

Section 4.3 considers the findings relative to NRC’s backfit rule.

•

Section 4.4 addresses the applicability of a safety goal evaluation to the current
rulemaking.

•

Section 4.5 describes the information required for review by the Committee to
Review Generic Requirements (CRGR).

4.1

Benefits and Costs Under the Main Analysis

This section summarizes the benefits and costs estimated for each regulatory initiative and
for the rule as a whole. To the extent that the affected attributes could be analyzed
quantitatively, the net effect of each option has been calculated and is presented below.
However, some benefits and costs could be evaluated only on a qualitative basis.
Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the results for the final rule as a whole, and Exhibit 4-3
shows the incremental costs for each of the 11 regulatory initiatives contained in the final
rule. Relative to the no-action alternative (Option 1), the rule as a whole (Option 2) will
result in a net quantitative cost estimated between $73.5 million and $94.0 million (7-percent
and 3-percent discount rate, respectively). The majority of the costs associated with Option
2 will be incurred by industry ($63.3 million - $80.4 million, 7-percent and 3-percent discount
rate, respectively).
The analysis estimates that Option 2 will result in qualitative benefits in the following
attributes: public health (accident), occupational health (accident), regulatory efficiency, offsite property, and on-site property. Specifically, the benefits include a reduced risk that
public health and occupational health will be affected by radiological releases resulting from
radiological emergencies, including hostile action. There also will be enhanced regulatory
efficiency through regulatory and compliance improvements, including changes in industry's
planning efforts and in NRC's review and inspection efforts.
The final rule also will reduce the risk that off-site and on-site property will be affected by
radiological releases resulting from emergencies, including hostile action. Although EP
cannot affect the probability of the initiating hostile action, a high level of EP increases the
likelihood of accident mitigation if the initiating event proceeds beyond the need for initial
operator actions. An augmented EP program will reduce the risk that off-site and on-site
property will be affected by radiological releases by improving the response to initiating
events that could lead to severe accidents in the absence of mitigative response.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 13

Exhibit 4-1
Summary of Overall Benefits and Costs
Net Monetary Savings (or Costs) Total Present Value

Non-Monetary Benefits/Costs

Option 1: No Action

Qualitative Benefits and Costs:

$0

None.

Option 2: Final Rule

Qualitative Benefits:

Industry:
($63.3 million) using a 7% discount rate
($80.4 million) using a 3% discount rate

Public Health (Accident): Reduced risk that public health will be
affected by radiological releases resulting from radiological
emergencies.

NRC:
($2.9 million) using a 7% discount rate
($4.2 million) using a 3% discount rate

Occupational Health (Accident): Reduced risk that occupational health
will be affected by radiological releases resulting from radiological
emergencies and by some hostile action.

Other Government:
($7.3 million) using a 7% discount rate
($9.4 million) using a 3% discount rate

Regulatory Efficiency: Enhanced regulatory efficiency through
regulatory and compliance improvements, including changes in
industry's planning efforts and in NRC's review and inspection efforts.
Off-Site Property: Reduced risk that off-site property will be affected by
radiological releases resulting from radiological emergencies.
On-Site Property: Reduced risk that on-site property will be affected by
radiological releases resulting from radiological emergencies and some
hostile action.
Qualitative Costs:
None.

Exhibit 4-2
Summary of One-Time, Annual, and Overall Benefits and Costs
Average per
Nuclear Power
Plant Site

Total Savings and Costs

Average per
Non-Power Reactor

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

($31,970,550)

($2,582,300)

($63,312,212)

($80,425,107)

($484,962)

($39,728)

($14,000)

$0

($597,600)

($192,400)

($2,932,780)

($4,207,814)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Other
Government

($3,449,600)

($315,900)

($7,283,713)

($9,377,182)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Total

($36,017,750)

($3,090,600)

($73,528,706)

($94,010,103)

($484,962)

($39,728)

($14,000)

$0

Entity
Industry
NRC

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 14

Exhibit 4-3
Summary of One-Time, Annual, and Overall Benefits and Costs,
by Regulatory Initiative
Total Savings and Costs

Section

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Average per Site

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($2,613,000)
($18,800)

$0
$0

($2,613,000)
($18,800)

($2,613,000)
($18,800)

($40,200)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($2,631,800)

$0

($2,631,800)

($2,631,800)

($40,200)

$0

Protection of Onsite Personnel
Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action
Industry
NRC

($487,500)
$0

$0
$0

($487,500)
$0

($487,500)
$0

($7,500)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($487,500)

$0

($487,500)

($487,500)

($7,500)

$0

($468,000)
($64,000)

($6,512,168)
($828,775)

($9,613,603)
($1,252,903)

($12,800)
n/a

($7,200)
n/a

$0

($279,500)

($3,392,323)

($5,244,568)

n/a

n/a

($884,000)

($811,500)

($10,733,266)

($16,111,074)

($12,800)

($7,200)

Evacuation Time Estimate Updating
Industry
($7,228,000)
($785,200)
NRC
($376,000)
($36,400)

($16,758,060)
($817,791)

($21,961,578)
($1,059,014)

($111,200)
n/a

($12,080)
n/a

Other
Government
Subtotal

Challenging Drills and Exercises
Industry
($832,000)
NRC
($52,000)
Other
Government
Subtotal

Other
Government
Subtotal

($364,000)

($36,400)

($805,791)

($1,047,014)

n/a

n/a

($7,968,000)

($858,000)

($18,381,641)

($24,067,605)

($111,200)

($12,080)

Licensee Coordination with Offsite Response Organizations
Industry
NRC

($133,250)
$0

$0
$0

($133,250)
$0

($133,250)
$0

($2,050)
n/a

$0
n/a

Other
Government

($715,000)

$0

($715,000)

($715,000)

n/a

n/a

Subtotal

($848,250)

$0

($848,250)

($848,250)

($2,050)

$0

($5,824,000)
($65,600)

$0
$0

($5,824,000)
($65,600)

($5,824,000)
($65,600)

($89,600)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($5,889,600)

$0

($5,889,600)

($5,889,600)

($89,600)

$0

On-Shift Staffing Analysis
Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 15

Total Savings and Costs
One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

Average per Site
One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($21,800)
n/a

($1,000)
n/a

n/a

n/a

Subtotal
($1,417,000)
($65,000)
($2,205,912)
($2,636,667)
Amended Emergency Plan Change Process – Power Reactor Licensees

($21,800)

($1,000)

Industry
($1,183,000)
($154,100)
($3,053,329)
($4,074,549)
NRC
$0
($92,000)
($1,116,614)
($1,726,298)
Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
Government
Subtotal
($1,183,000)
($246,100)
($4,169,943)
($5,800,847)
Amended Emergency Plan Change Process – Non-Power Reactor Licensees

($18,200)
n/a

($2,371)
n/a

n/a

n/a

($18,200)

($2,371)

Industry

Section

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

Emergency Response Organization Augmentation and Alternative Facilities
Industry
($1,417,000)
($65,000)
($2,205,912)
($2,636,667)
NRC
$0
$0
$0
$0
Other
Government

NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

$0

$0

$0

$0

($448,000)

$0

($448,000)

($448,000)

($14,000)

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($448,000)

$0

($448,000)

($448,000)

($14,000)

$0

Emergency Declaration Timeliness
Industry

($286,000)

$0

($286,000)

($286,000)

($4,400)

$0

NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

($15,600)

$0

($15,600)

($15,600)

n/a

n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($301,600)

$0

($301,600)

($301,600)

($4,400)

$0

Emergency Operations Facility - Performance Based Approach
Industry
$0
$0
$0
NRC
($54,000)
$0
($54,000)

$0
($54,000)

$0
n/a

$0
n/a

Other
Government
Subtotal

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($54,000)

$0

($54,000)

($54,000)

$0

$0

Backup Means for Alert and Notification Systems
Industry
NRC

($11,518,800)
($15,600)

($1,110,000)
$0

($24,990,993)
($15,600)

($32,346,960)
($15,600)

($177,212)
n/a

($17,077)
n/a

Other
Government

($2,370,600)

$0

($2,370,600)

($2,370,600)

n/a

n/a

Subtotal

($13,905,000)

($1,110,000)

($27,377,193)

($34,733,160)

($177,212)

($17,077)

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Total Savings and Costs

Section

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

Average per Site
NPV
(3 percent)

TOTAL (All Regulatory Initiatives)

Industry

NRC
Other
Government

Total

Page 16

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

Nuclear Power
Plant:

Nuclear Power
Plant:

Non-Power
Reactor:

Non-Power
Reactor:

($484,962)

($39,728)

($31,970,550)

($2,582,300)

($63,312,212)

($80,425,107)

($597,600)

($192,400)

($2,932,780)

($4,207,814)

($14,000)
n/a

($3,449,600)

($315,900)

($7,283,713)

($9,377,182)

n/a

n/a

Nuclear Power
Plant:

Nuclear Power
Plant:

Non-Power
Reactor:

Non-Power
Reactor:

($36,017,750)

($3,090,600)

($73,528,706)

($94,010,103)

($484,962)

$0
n/a

($39,728)

($14,000)
$0
*Results in 2010 dollars.
**Not all 65 sites will incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site (which is shown
above) will be less than the cost per affected site (both figures are shown in Appendix A).

4.1.1

Protection of Onsite Personnel

The new measures for this regulatory initiative will protect onsite emergency responders and
other onsite personnel in emergencies resulting from hostile actions. The NRC conducted
analyses following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and determined that the
current guidance for protection of personnel during an emergency would not be protective in
hostile action scenarios. A lack of protection for emergency responders who are expected
to implement the emergency plan could result in the plan not being implemented as
required. These emergency responders are best able to mitigate any damage caused by
the hostile action and to provide notifications to OROs to consider protective actions for the
public should such be necessary. A lack of protection for onsite emergency responders
could result in the responders not being able to provide an adequate protective response
during hostile action scenarios. The final rule will require licensees to develop new
protective measures, such as evacuating personnel from target buildings, taking cover
during an armed attack, accounting for personnel after an attack, and providing emergency
response training. Such measures are prudent to protect personnel necessary to safely
shut down the reactor. The primary benefit of this initiative, therefore, is potentially saving
lives and reducing exposures during hostile action, both in terms of the emergency
responders and the local population.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to in a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees of approximately $2.6 million.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 17

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $40,000.

•

Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $19,000.

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because, in the event of hostile action, the provision
potentially will result in significant saving of lives and reduction in exposures for
onsite personnel. Appendix A.1 presents more detailed information on the costs for
the protection of onsite personnel regulatory initiative.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($2,613,000)
($18,800)

$0
$0

($2,613,000)
($18,800)

($2,613,000)
($18,800)

($40,200)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($2,631,800)

$0

($2,631,800)

($2,631,800)

($40,200)

$0

Appendix A.1 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing protection of onsite personnel.

4.1.2

Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action

This regulatory initiative codifies generically applicable requirements similar to those
imposed by the anticipatory EALs of the ICM Order and industry initiatives responding to
NRC Bulletin 2005-02. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
staff became aware that the currently approved nuclear plant EALs may not appropriately
characterize hostile actions. Changes to EALs were warranted due to the potentially rapid
and purposefully damaging nature of hostile actions. Without proper declaration of
emergencies based on hostile action, OROs may not receive adequate and timely
notification and the ERO may not activate in a timely manner to provide an adequate
protective response during hostile action scenarios. The regulatory initiative will increase
assurance that licensees are adequately prepared to conduct appropriate assessment and
emergency classification during hostile action, thereby resulting in emergency personnel
onsite and offsite receiving proper notification to rapidly respond with the appropriate
resources. The benefit of these new measures is to provide licensees and EROs more time
to prepare for and respond to emergency events, thereby potentially saving lives, radiation
exposure and property.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees of approximately $488,000.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 18

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $8,000.

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will allow emergency responders more time to
coordinate a response effort in the event of hostile action. The additional time will
potentially enable emergency responders to save more lives.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($487,500)
$0

$0
$0

($487,500)
$0

($487,500)
$0

($7,500)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($487,500)

$0

($487,500)

($487,500)

($7,500)

$0

Appendix A.2 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing EALs for hostile action.

4.1.3

Challenging Drills and Exercises

The challenging drills and exercises initiative originated from NRC Bulletin 2005-02, as well
as from an SRM issued on June 29, 2006. NRC regulations are designed to ensure that
licensee ERO personnel are prepared to respond to any emergency. Drill and exercise
programs are intended to ensure that ERO personnel develop and maintain the key skills
necessary for mitigating emergencies. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, the staff became aware that hostile actions pose circumstances that
are different from the conditions traditionally practiced in EP drill and exercise programs.
The ERO is the primary organization trained to effectively mitigate damage caused by an
emergency and to notify OROs of the event and, if necessary, of the need to take protective
actions. Including hostile action in licensee drill and exercise programs will better prepare
the ERO to respond to such events. This regulatory change will require enhanced scenario
content for drills and exercises to include hostile action scenarios, and reduce
preconditioning of licensee staff through a wider spectrum of challenges, thus improving
licensee ERO capabilities under all accident scenarios. The benefit will be increased
assurance that emergency plans would be implemented during any emergency and as a
result, improved protection of public health and safety during an emergency.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees of approximately $832,000, followed by total
annual costs on the order of $468,000. The total present value of these costs is
approximately $6.5 million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $9.6 million (using a
3-percent discount rate) over the next 30 years.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 19

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $13,000 followed by annual
costs of approximately $7,000.

•

Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $52,000, followed by annual costs of approximately $64,000. The
total present value of these NRC costs is $829,000 (using a 7-percent discount rate)
and $1.3 million (using a 3-percent discount rate).

•

Costs to Other Government Agencies. The rule will result in annual costs to other
government agencies to participate in hostile action drills and exercises. The annual
cost is approximately $279,500. The total present value of these costs is $3.4
million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $5.2 million (using a 3-percent discount
rate).

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will improve the execution of EP plans and better
protect public health and safety during an emergency.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($832,000)
($52,000)

($468,000)
($64,000)

($6,577,951)
($837,771)

($9,812,197)
($1,280,061)

($12,800)
n/a

($7,200)
n/a

$0

($279,500)

($3,392,323)

($5,244,568)

n/a

n/a

($884,000)

($811,500)

($10,733,266)

($16,111,074)

($12,800)

($7,200)

Appendix A.3 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing challenging drills and
exercises.
Not all 65 sites will incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site (which is shown
above) will be less than the cost per affected site (both figures are shown in Appendix A).

4.1.4

Evacuation Time Estimate Updating

The purpose of ETEs is to analyze expected traffic flow during an evacuation and identify
any constraint that could challenge efficient evacuation. The ETE facilitates evacuation
planning to provide an adequate protective response in the unlikely event of a severe
accident. ETE results provide emergency planners information to support protective action
decisions, including whether evacuation or sheltering in place is the better response to a
severe accident. Existing EP regulations are ambiguous on updating ETEs. The changes
to the regulations and guidance, which originated from NRC staff review, will require the
periodic review and updating of the ETEs as well as information on evacuation plan
improvements. The staff is in the process of changing its guidance for the recommendation
of protective actions to protect the public. The best protective action strategy is conditional
on the evacuation time for some accident scenarios. ETEs performed in accordance with
standard methods will improve the information used for determining the best protective
action strategy for each site. The primary benefit of this change will be to aid in the

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 20

development of the appropriate protective action strategy for each site. In addition, the
identification of potential evacuation challenges and the consideration of methods to
improve evacuation plans will lead to enhanced protection of public health and safety.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees of approximately $7.2 million, followed by total
annual costs on the order of $785,000. The total present value of these costs is
approximately $16.8 million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $22.0 million
(using a 3-percent discount rate) over the next 30 years.

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $111,000 followed by
annual costs of approximately $12,000.

•

Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $376,000, followed by annual costs of approximately $36,000. The
total present value of these NRC costs is $818,000 (using a 7-percent discount rate)
and $1.1 million (using a 3-percent discount rate).

•

Costs to Other Government Agencies. The rule will result in a one-time cost to other
government agencies of approximately $364,000, followed by annual costs of
approximately $36,000. The total present value of these other government costs is
$806,000 (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $1.1 million (using a 3-percent
discount rate).

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will result in updated EP plans, more effective
emergency responses, and better protection to the local population in case of an
emergency event.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($7,228,000)
($376,000)

($785,200)
($36,400)

($16,758,060)
($817,791)

($21,961,578)
($1,059,014)

($111,200)
n/a

($12,080)
n/a

($364,000)

($36,400)

($805,791)

($1,047,014)

n/a

n/a

($7,968,000)

($858,000)

($18,381,641)

($24,067,605)

($111,200)

($12,080)

Appendix A.4 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing ETE updating.
Not all 65 sites will incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site (which is shown
above) will be less than the cost per affected site (both figures are shown in Appendix A).

4.1.5

Licensee Coordination with Offsite Response Organizations

This regulatory initiative originated in the Order and from the NRC staff’s observation of
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Reviews. Currently, licensees are
not explicitly required to coordinate with OROs and identify in their emergency plans the

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 21

assistance expected from ORO personnel during hostile action directed at a nuclear power
plant. The DHS Comprehensive Review program determined that, at many sites, OROs had
not planned for the competing resource demands that would occur during hostile action.
The final rule will require licensees to identify in their emergency plans the assistance
expected from State, local, and Federal agencies with responsibilities for coping with
emergencies, including hostile action at the site. These regulations require licensees to
know which OROs would respond during an emergency and how to communicate with those
OROs. The primary benefit will be to increase assurance that resources are available to
respond to hostile action at a nuclear power plant. This change will enhance protection of
public health and safety.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees on the order of $133,000.

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $2,000.

•

Costs to Other Government Agencies. Additionally, the regulatory initiative will
result in a one-time cost to other government agencies of approximately $715,000.

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will increase the effectiveness of important
aspects of the EP plan, thereby potentially saving lives in the event of an
emergency.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($133,250)
$0

$0
$0

($133,250)
$0

($133,250)
$0

($2,050)
n/a

$0
n/a

($715,000)

$0

($715,000)

($715,000)

n/a

n/a

($848,250)

$0

($848,250)

($848,250)

($2,050)

$0

Appendix A.5 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing licensee coordination with
OROs.

4.1.6

On-Shift Staffing Analysis

This regulatory initiative will codify generically applicable requirements similar to those
imposed by the 2002 ICM Order requirements limiting on-shift staff staffing analysis for
individuals performing emergency plan functions. The final rule requires nuclear power
reactor licensees to perform a detailed analysis, such as a job task analysis (JTA) or a time
motion analysis, to demonstrate that on-shift personnel could implement the plan effectively
without having tasks and responsibilities that could prevent them from performing their
emergency plan functions in a timely manner. The regulatory initiative will increase
assurance that appropriate shift resources are available for emergency plan implementation

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 22

so that during an emergency, licensees will be able to carry out their emergency plans in a
timely fashion as needed to protect public health and safety. The lack of adequate staff on
shift has the potential to delay implementation of the emergency plan during plant transients
that may lead to an emergency. The primary benefit of this requirement will be to increase
assurance of effective and timely emergency plan implementation and timely protective
action recommendations to OROs, should that be necessary. This will enhance protection
of public health and safety in the event of an emergency.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The final rule will lead to a total one-time cost across all
power reactor licensees of approximately $5.8 million.

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $90,000.

•

Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $66,000.

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will reduce the possibility that emergency plans
will fail as a result of overburdening on-shift staff with tasks and responsibilities.
Therefore, the public will be better protected because onsite staff will be able to
better fulfill all aspects of the emergency plan, and protective action
recommendations to State and local government authorities will be more timely and
accurate.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($5,824,000)
($65,600)

$0
$0

($5,824,000)
($65,600)

($5,824,000)
($65,600)

($89,600)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($5,889,600)

$0

($5,889,600)

($5,889,600)

($89,600)

$0

Appendix A.6 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing on-shift staffing analysis.

4.1.7

Emergency Response Organization Augmentation and Alternative
Facilities

This regulatory initiative will codify generically applicable requirements for the use of an
alternative emergency response facility or facilities similar to those requirements imposed by
Order EA-02-26 and addressed in NRC Bulletin 2005-02. The alternative facility or facilities
will protect ERO personnel from hostile action and increases assurance of timely ERO
augmentation so responders can travel quickly to the site. In the event of hostile action, the
onsite EP facilities may not be accessible by emergency response personnel, which may
prevent the ERO from taking the necessary actions to mitigate facility damage or

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 23

implementing measures to protect public health and safety. Alternative facilities provide a
place where the ERO can gather and prepare to enter the site as soon as it is safe to do so.
If the ERO cannot gather in a timely manner, the full augmentation of the on shift ERO
would be delayed. The alternative facility would be equipped to allow the ERO to begin
preparations for damage mitigation efforts when they can access the site. The primary
benefit of this regulatory initiative is greater assurance that the emergency response effort
will be effective in the event that hostile action compromises primary emergency response
facilities.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees on the order of $1.4 million, followed by total
annual costs of approximately $65,000. The total present value of these costs is
$2.2 million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $2.6 million (using a 3-percent
discount rate) over the next 30 years.

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $22,000 followed by annual
costs of approximately $1,000.

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will increase assurance that EP plans would be
executed effectively in the event of hostile actions, thereby better protecting public
health and safety.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($1,417,000)
$0

($65,000)
$0

($2,205,912)
$0

($2,636,667)
$0

($21,800)
n/a

($1,000)
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($1,445,000)

($65,000)

($2,205,912)

($2,636,667)

($21,800)

($1,000)

Appendix A.7 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing ERO augmentation and
alternative facilities.

4.1.8

Amended Emergency Plan Change Process

Current regulations require licensees to “maintain in effect” their emergency plans. The
objective of this regulatory initiative, which originated in NRC staff review and applies both to
power reactors and non-power reactors, is not an improvement in current safety, but rather
ensuring that the current level of safety is not reduced by changes to the emergency plan.
The final rule will substantially clarify what changes would reduce the effectiveness of the
licensee’s plans, minimizing licensees’ uncertainty regarding what changes would require
prior NRC staff review and what changes would not. This outcome, if achieved, will result in
the following benefits:

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

-

Page 24

Facilitate the decision process for changes, resulting in less review and
evaluation time.
Minimize licensee’s exposure to potential violations for making changes
without needed prior NRC staff review.
Minimize the increasing trend by some licensees of avoiding enforcement
action by submitting all EP plan changes for NRC review, resulting in fewer
costs of submittal and NRC staff charges.

•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees of approximately $1.2 million, followed by total
annual costs of about $154,000. In addition, the regulatory initiative will result in a
one-time cost across all non-power reactors of approximately $448,000. Non-power
reactors do not incur annual costs. The total present value of these costs is $4.6
million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $6.3 million (using a 3-percent discount
rate) over the next 30 years.

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $18,000 followed by annual
costs of approximately $2,000. The average non-power reactor will incur a one-time
cost of approximately $14,000 and no annual costs.

•

Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in an annual cost of $92,000. The
total present value of these NRC costs is $1.1 million (using a 7-percent discount
rate) and $1.7 million (using a 3-percent discount rate).

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will increase assurance that current levels of
safety will not be reduced and the licensee’s emergency plan, as modified, will
continue to meet the requirements in Appendix E to Part 50, and for nuclear power
reactors, the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b).

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Total Savings and Costs
Entity

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees
Industry
($1,183,000) ($154,100)
NRC
$0
($92,000)
Other
$0
$0
Government
Non-Power Reactor Licensees
Industry
($448,000)
$0
NRC
$0
$0
Other
$0
$0
Government
Subtotal
($1,631,000) ($246,100)

Page 25

Average per Site

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($3,053,329)
($1,116,614)

($4,074,549)
($1,726,298)

($18,200)
n/a

($2,371)
n/a

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($448,000)
$0

($448,000)
$0

($14,000)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($4,617,943)

($6,248,847)

($16,814)

($2,371)

Appendix A.8 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing Amended Emergency Plan
Change Process.
Not all 65 sites will incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site (which is shown
above) will be less than the cost per affected site (both figures are shown in Appendix A).

4.1.9

Emergency Declaration Timeliness

Current EP regulations do not establish timeliness criteria for the emergency declaration
process. This regulatory initiative, which originated from NRC staff review, will require
licensees to have the capability to assess, classify, and declare an emergency within 15
minutes of the availability of information that an EAL has been exceeded and to promptly
declare the emergency as soon as possible following identification of the appropriate
classification. While this action already is largely conducted on a voluntary basis by the
industry, codification of the rule will result in increased assurance that the emergency plan
will be effectively implemented. Thus, the objective of the regulatory initiative is to ensure
that licensee emergency declarations are performed in a timely manner so as to support
timely implementation of emergency response actions. The primary benefit will be to
enhance the NRC’s assurance that protective actions can be implemented on a timely basis,
thereby protecting public health and safety.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will lead to a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees of approximately $286,000.

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $4,000.

•

Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $16,000.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

•

Page 26

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this provision,
the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the provision will
provide health and safety-related benefits, as discussed above. The regulatory
initiative is cost-justified because it will increase assurance in the ability of licensees
to conduct timely emergency declarations in the event of an emergency, which, in
turn, will allow emergency personnel to respond as quickly as possible to protect the
public.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($286,000)
($15,600)

$0
$0

($286,000)
($15,600)

($286,000)
($15,600)

($4,400)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($301,600)

$0

($301,600)

($301,600)

($4,400)

$0

Appendix A.9 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing the timeliness of emergency
declarations.

4.1.10 Emergency Operations Facility – Performance-Based Approach
This provision will revise the EP regulations to make the requirements for EOFs more
performance-based. This regulatory initiative, which originated from NRC staff review, will
allow licensees to locate an EOF more than 25 miles from a site (with &RPPLVVLRQ approval) and
multi-site licensees to consolidate their EOFs if those licensees can demonstrate their emergency
response strategies will adequately cope with an emergency at any of the associated plants.
The new measures will provide specific functional requirements for EOFs, thereby ensuring that
the necessary capabilities will be in place for the protection of public health and safety. The
primary benefit of this provision will be the reduction in costs achieved by licensees that
choose to consolidate their EOFs.
Total Savings to Industry. The analysis assumes there will be no incremental costs
to licensees for this regulatory initiative because the rule will not require location of
an EOF more than 25 miles from a site or consolidation of EOFs. Instead, a
licensee voluntarily will choose to pursue consolidation only if the incremental
savings will exceed the incremental costs. These savings have not been quantified
in the analysis. 7KHDQDO\VLVDOVRDVVXPHVWKDWH[LVWLQJ(2)VDOUHDG\DGGUHVVWKH
SHUIRUPDQFHEDVHGFDSDELOLWLHVIRU(2)V

•
Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $54,000.
•

•

Decision Rationale. The provision’s savings to licensees will exceed the costs to the
NRC and, therefore, that the provision is cost-justified.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations
Total Savings and Costs
Entity
Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Page 27
Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

$0
($54,000)

$0
$0

$0
($54,000)

$0
($54,000)

$0
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($54,000)

$0

($54,000)

($54,000)

$0

$0

Appendix A.10 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing the EOF performance-based
approach.

4.1.11 Backup Means for ANS
This regulatory initiative, which originated from NRC staff review, will require that the public
ANS has backup methods for both the alert and notification functions. Licensees (or the
responsible offsite authorities) must demonstrate that the site’s alert and notification
capability includes administrative and physical means for a backup method. A backup
means of alerting and notifying the public will increase the likelihood that an adequate
protective response can be implemented when the primary means of alert and notification is
unavailable. The primary benefit of this provision will be to provide increased assurance
that the public will be alerted and notified of any emergent event at the nuclear power plant,
thereby increasing the effectiveness of the emergency plan, saving lives, and increasing
public safety and confidence.
•

Total Cost to Industry. The regulatory initiative will result in a total one-time cost
across all power reactor licensees of approximately $11.5 million, followed by total
annual costs on the order of $1.1 million. The total present value of these costs is
$25.0 million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $32.3 million (using a 3-percent
discount rate) over the next 30 years.

•

Average Cost per Site. The average nuclear power plant site, which may include
multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately $177,000 followed by
annual costs of approximately $17,000.

•

Costs to NRC. The regulatory initiative will result in a one-time cost to NRC of
approximately $16,000.

•

Costs to Other Government Agencies. The regulatory initiative will result in a onetime cost to other government agencies of approximately $2.4 million.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

•

Page 28

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this
regulatory initiative, the NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded
that the regulatory initiative will provide health and safety-related benefits, as
discussed above. The regulatory initiative is cost-justified because it will increase
assurance that the local population will be notified of emergency events, thereby
increasing the effectiveness of the emergency plan, saving lives, and increasing
public confidence and safety. Appendix A.11 contains a more detailed analysis of
the costs associated with the backup means for ANS provisions of the final rule.
Total Savings and Costs
Entity

Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

Average per Site

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

NPV
(7 percent)

NPV
(3 percent)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

Annual
Saving
(Cost)

($11,518,800)
($15,600)

($1,110,000)
$0

($24,990,993)
($15,600)

($32,346,960)
($15,600)

($177,212)
n/a

($17,077)
n/a

($2,370,600)

$0

($2,370,600)

($2,370,600)

n/a

n/a

($13,905,000)

($1,110,000)

($27,377,193)

($34,733,160)

($177,212)

($17,077)

Appendix A.11 presents additional detail on the cost analysis for the regulatory initiative addressing the backup means for ANS.
Not all 65 sites will incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site (which is shown
above) will be less than the cost per affected site (both figures are shown in Appendix A).

4.2

Sensitivity Analysis – Pre-Order Baseline

The NRC has performed a sensitivity analysis using an alternative baseline (called the
“pre-order baseline”) that considers the incremental costs of the final rule relative to only
those regulations that were in effect before the NRC issued Order EA-02-26 and Bulletin
2005-02. The purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to account for relevant cost impacts of
the orders and post-Bulletin industry initiatives in addition to those that are incremental to
the final rule. These impacts already have been incurred, but they have not previously been
quantified. The key findings of the sensitivity analysis are presented below:
•

Total Cost to Industry. The final rule will lead to a total one-time cost across all
reactor sites of approximately $59.0 million, followed by total annual costs on the
order of $2.6 million. The total present value of these costs is $90.3 million (using a
7-percent discount rate) and $107.4 million (using a 3-percent discount rate) over
the next 30 years.

•

Average Cost per Site for Power Reactors. The average nuclear power plant site,
which may include multiple units, will incur a one-time cost of approximately
$901,000 followed by annual costs of approximately $40,000.

•

Average Cost per Site for Non-Power Reactors. The average non-power reactor will
incur a one-time cost of approximately $14,000. The final rule will not impose any
annual costs on non-power reactors.

•

Value of Benefits Not Reflected Above. With the exception of some monetary
savings to industry, the cost figures shown above do not reflect the value of the
benefits of the final rule. These benefits are evaluated qualitatively in Section 4.1.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 29

(See Sections 4.1.1 - 4.1.11 for a detailed discussion on the benefits of each
regulatory initiative of the final rule.)
•

Costs to NRC. The rule will result in a one-time cost to NRC of approximately $1.6
million, followed by annual costs of approximately $236,000. The total present value
of these costs is $4.4 million (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $6.0 million
(using a 3-percent discount rate).

•

Costs to Other Government Agencies. The final rule will result in a one-time cost to
other government agencies of approximately $12.1 million, followed by annual costs
of approximately $316,000. The total present value of these costs is $15.9 million
(using a 7-percent discount rate) and $18.0 million (using a 3-percent discount rate).

•

Decision Rationale. Although the NRC did not quantify the benefits of this rule, the
NRC staff did qualitatively examine benefits and concluded that the rule will provide
substantial health and safety-related benefits. The rule is cost-justified because the
regulatory initiatives for increased and consistent EP measures will increase the
effectiveness of emergency planning and response efforts, thereby saving lives of
emergency personnel (during hostile action) and the public in the event of an
emergency (hostile action or non-hostile action). Exhibit 4-4 below presents a more
detailed cost analysis.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 30

Exhibit 4-4
Sensitivity Analysis under the Pre-Order Baseline:
Industry, NRC, and Other Government Savings and Costs, by Regulatory Initiative
One-Time
Section
Saving
(Cost)
Protection of Onsite Personnel
($4,771,000)
Industry
NRC
($38,800)
Other
$0
Government
Subtotal
($4,809,800)

Total Savings and Costs
Annual
NPV
Saving
(7 percent)
(Cost)
$0
$0

($4,771,000)
($38,800)

($4,771,000)
($38,800)

($73,400)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($4,809,800)

($4,809,800)

($73,400)

$0

($6,428,500)
($94,000)

($6,428,500)
($94,000)

($98,900)
n/a

$0
n/a

($143,000)

($143,000)

n/a

n/a

($6,665,500)

($6,665,500)

($98,900)

$0

($15,274,168)
($2,092,098)

($18,375,603)
($2,802,512)

($147,600)
n/a

($7,200)
n/a

($8,452,323)

($10,304,568)

n/a

n/a

($25,818,589)

($31,482,683)

($147,600)

($7,200)

($16,758,060)
($817,791)

($21,961,578)
($1,059,014)

($111,200)
n/a

($12,080)
n/a

($805,791)

($1,047,014)

n/a

n/a

($24,067,605)

($111,200)

($12,080)

($1,066,000)
($37,800)

($16,400)
n/a

$0
n/a

($4,160,000)

n/a

n/a

($5,263,800)

($16,400)

$0

$0
Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action
($6,428,500)
$0
Industry
NRC
($94,000)
$0
Other
($143,000)
$0
Government
Subtotal
($6,665,500)
$0
Challenging Drills and Exercises
($9,594,000)
($468,000)
Industry
NRC
($791,000)
($107,200)
Other
($5,060,000)
($279,500)
Government
Subtotal
($15,445,000)
($854,700)
Evacuation Time Estimate Updating
($7,228,000)
($785,200)
Industry
NRC
($376,000)
($36,400)
Other
($364,000)
($36,400)
Government
Subtotal
($7,968,000)
($858,000)

($18,381,641)
Licensee Coordination with Offsite Response Organizations
($1,066,000)
$0
($1,066,000)
Industry
NRC
($37,800)
$0
($37,800)
Other
($4,160,000)
$0
($4,160,000)
Government
Subtotal
($5,263,800)
$0
($5,263,800)
On-Shift Staffing Analysis
($12,337,000)
Industry
NRC
($103,400)
Other
$0
Government
Subtotal
($12,440,400)

NPV
(3 percent)

Average per Site
One-Time
Annual
Saving
Saving
(Cost)
(Cost)

$0
$0

($12,337,000)
($103,400)

($12,337,000)
($103,400)

($189,800)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

$0

($12,440,400)

($12,440,400)

($189,800)

$0

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Total Savings and Costs
One-Time
Annual
NPV
NPV
Section
Saving
Saving
(7 percent)
(3 percent)
(Cost)
(Cost)
Emergency Response Organization Augmentation and Alternative Facilities
($2,925,000)
($65,000)
($3,713,912)
($4,144,667)
Industry
NRC
($47,800)
$0
($47,800)
($47,800)
Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
Government
Subtotal
($2,972,800)
($65,000)
($3,761,712)
($4,192,467)

Page 31

Average per Site
One-Time
Annual
Saving
Saving
(Cost)
(Cost)
($45,000)
n/a

($1,000)
n/a

n/a

n/a

($45,000)

($1,000)

Amended Emergency Plan Change Process – Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees
($1,183,000)
($154,100)
($3,053,329)
($4,074,549)
($18,200)
Industry
NRC
$0
($92,000)
($1,116,614)
($1,726,298)
n/a
Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
n/a
Government
Subtotal
($1,183,000)
($246,100)
($4,169,943)
($5,800,847)
($18,200)
Amended Emergency Plan Change Process – Non-Power Reactor Licensees
Industry
NRC
Other
Government
Subtotal

($448,000)
$0

$0
$0

($448,000)
$0

($448,000)
$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

($448,000)

$0
$0
$0

($448,000)
Emergency Declaration Timeliness
($1,488,500)
Industry
NRC
($15,600)
Other
$0
Government
Subtotal
($1,504,100)

($2,371)
n/a
n/a
($2,371)

($14,000)

$0

n/a

n/a

($448,000)

n/a
($14,000)

n/a
$0

($1,488,500)
($15,600)

($1,488,500)
($15,600)

($22,900)
n/a

$0
n/a

$0

$0

n/a

n/a

($22,900)

$0

$0
n/a

$0
n/a

n/a

n/a

$0

$0

($177,212)
n/a

($17,077)
n/a

n/a

n/a

($177,212)

($17,077)

$0
($1,504,100)
($1,504,100)
Emergency Operations Facility – Performance-Based Approach
$0
$0
$0
$0
Industry
NRC
($54,000)
$0
($54,000)
($54,000)
Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
Government
Subtotal
($54,000)
$0
($54,000)
($54,000)
Backup Means for ANS
($11,518,800)
($1,110,000)
($24,990,993)
($32,346,960)
Industry
NRC
($15,600)
$0
($15,600)
($15,600)
Other
($2,370,600)
$0
($2,370,600)
($2,370,600)
Government
Subtotal
($13,905,000)
($1,110,000)
($27,377,193)
($34,733,160)

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Section

Total Savings and Costs
Annual
NPV
Saving
(7 percent)
(Cost)

One-Time
Saving
(Cost)

TOTAL (All Regulatory Initiatives)

NPV
(3 percent)

Industry

($58,987,800)

($2,582,300)

($90,329,462)

($107,442,357)

NRC
Other
Government

($1,574,000)

($235,600)

($4,433,503)

($5,994,824)

($12,097,600)

($315,900)

($15,931,713)

($18,025,182)

Total

($72,659,400)

($3,133,800)

Results in 2010 dollars.

4.3

($110,408,679)

($131,462,362)

Page 32

Average per Site
One-Time
Annual
Saving
Saving
(Cost)
(Cost)
Nuclear Power
Plant:

Nuclear Power
Plant:

Non-Power
Reactor:

Non-Power
Reactor:

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Nuclear
Power Plant:

Nuclear Power
Plant:

Non-Power
Reactor:

Non-Power
Reactor:

($900,612)

($14,000)

($900,612)

($14,000)

($39,728)

$0

($39,728)

$0

Backfit Analysis

This section presents the NRC’s evaluation of changes in the final rule in accordance with
the Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109. The backfit analysis examines the impacts of the rule
relative to the baseline used in the regulatory analysis, which consists of existing
requirements, the recently issued orders, and voluntary actions on part of the industry
subsequent to NRC Bulletin 2005-02.
The backfit analysis examines the aggregation of the subset of regulatory requirements that
constitute backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). The analysis excludes individual
requirements that are not subject to the Backfit Rule or that do not fall within the definition of
“backfitting” as defined in the Backfit Rule, which include requirements that fall into one or
more of the following categories.
•

Administrative matters. Revisions that make minor administrative changes, such as
correction of typographic errors, correction of inconsistencies, relocating
requirements from one section to another, and combining existing requirements into
a single section, or changes in NRC administrative requirements, such as
acceptable document formats, number of copies to be submitted, or an NRC
administrative process.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 33

•

Information collection and reporting requirements. Revisions that either amend
existing information collection and reporting requirements or impose new information
and collection and reporting requirements, as set forth in the CRGR charter.

•

Clarifications. Revisions that clarify current requirements to assure consistent
understanding and implementation of the NRC’s original intent for these
requirements. These revisions remove the ambiguities that produced regulatory
uncertainty without changing the underlying requirements stated in these sections.

•

Permissive relaxations/Voluntary alternatives. Revisions that permit, but do not
require, relaxations or alternatives to current requirements (i.e., licensees are free to
either comply with current requirements or adopt the relaxed requirements/voluntary
alternative as a binding requirement).

With the exception of two initiatives, one in Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E.8. allowing a
performance-based approach for the EOF (which is expected to result in no cost to industry)
and one in § 50.54(q) clarifying that licensees must submit for prior NRC approval under 10
CFR 50.90 any proposed change to their emergency plans that reduce the effectiveness of
the emergency plans, the entire final rule qualifies as a backfit.
The amendment to § 50.54(q) requiring use of the license amendment process for changes
to emergency plans that would reduce the effectiveness of the plans is not a change to
existing requirements. Some confusion exists as to whether all proposed emergency plan
changes submitted under § 50.4 will result in a reduction in effectiveness and whether
Commission review of such submissions is necessary. The NRC is clarifying that the
license amendment process is the correct process to use when reviewing submittals
involving a proposed emergency plan change that the licensee has determined constitutes a
reduction in effectiveness of the plan. The final rule language addresses this clarification.
As part of this clarification, power reactor and non-power reactor licensees may need to
review and possibly revise procedures and training to clarify the process for emergency plan
changes (i.e., through 10 CFR 50.90 submittals).
This provision in the final rule is not a backfit. The Backfit Rule provides a “formal,
systematic review to ensure” that “new or revised requirements or staff positions … are
properly justified and suitably defined. The requirements of this process are intended to
ensure order, discipline, and predictability and to enhance optimal use of NRC staff and
licensee resources.” NUREG-1409, “Backfitting Guidelines”, July 1990, ADAMS Accession
No. ML032230247. In particular, the regulatory stability provided by the Backfit Rule applies
only to the activities that were originally approved by issuance of a license, license
amendment, or another regulatory approval. As explained in the Statements of
Consideration for this final rule, a licensee’s request under 10 CFR 50.54(q) asks for
Commission authority to do what is not currently permitted under its license. In this
circumstance, the licensee has no valid expectations protected by the Backfit Rule regarding
the means for obtaining the new authority that is not permitted under the current license.
This fundamental principle of the Backfit Rule can be found in many NRC rulemakings,
including the original 10 CFR Part 52 rulemaking (54 FR 15372; April 18, 1989).
In addition, to the extent that using a license amendment process for making modifications
to emergency plans that reduce the effectiveness of the plans is considered a change, it is a
change to the NRC’s regulatory process for addressing modifications to the emergency
plan. The NRC’s regulatory review process is not a licensee procedure required for

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 34

operating a plant that would be subject to backfit limitations. Furthermore, a licensee’s
procedural changes to address NRC administrative requirements do not constitute changes
to procedures to “operate” a facility within the meaning of § 50.109(a)(1). The NRC only
intended to provide backfitting protection to those aspects of licensee procedures needed to
comply with the NRC’s substantive technical requirements involving radiological health and
safety and common defense and security. 4 The Backfit Rule was not intended to address
changes in aspects of licensee procedures needed to comply with changes or clarifications
in NRC administrative requirements such as acceptable document formats, number of
copies, or – as in this case – the process by which an NRC approval is provided. For these
reasons, this clarification in 10 CFR 50.54(q) will not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR
50.109.
The NRC evaluated the aggregated set of requirements constituting backfits in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.109 to determine if the costs of implementing the rule will be justified by a
substantial increase in public health and safety or common defense and security. In
performing this analysis, the NRC considered the quantitative and qualitative costs and
benefits of the rule, as discussed below.
Collectively, the individual requirements in the final rule that qualify as backfits will result in
an estimated net cost of approximately $59.8 million to industry over the next 30 years
(present value), assuming a 7-percent discount rate, or approximately $75.9 million
assuming a 3-percent discount rate.
For the average nuclear power plant site, these backfits will equate to an initial one-time
cost of approximately $467,000, followed by annual costs of about $37,000 per year. For
industry as a whole, NRC estimates that the backfits will result in approximately $30.3
million in one-time costs, and about $2.4 million in annual costs.
With regard to EP benefits afforded by the final rule’s provisions, as documented in Section
4.1 of the regulatory analysis, the NRC considered them in qualitative terms. NRC also
qualitatively determined whether the costs of the rule will be justified in light of the EP
benefits. In contrast, the NRC evaluated costs in quantitative terms, as documented in
Appendix A to the regulatory analysis.
In performing this analysis, the NRC considered the nine factors in 10 CFR 50.109, as
follows:
(1)

Statement of the specific objectives that the backfit is designed to achieve;
The rulemaking aims to enhance the current EP regulations pertaining to
nuclear power reactors. The goals of the final rule are as follows:
•

4

To enhance nuclear plant EP by codifying the requirements imposed
by Commission orders issued after the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, as modified based upon experience and insights gained

The NRC notes that some NRC-compelled changes to procedures needed to comply with the NRC’s
substantive technical requirements involving radiological health and safety or common defense and security,
would not constitute backfitting under § 50.109(a)(1). The most common example is an NRC-compelled change
necessitated by a new statutory provision, where the statutory provision affords the NRC little discretion in
implementing the statutory mandate. See U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Criminal Penalties:
Unauthorized Introduction of Weapons,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 197, October 14, 2009, pp. 52667-52675.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 35

since implementation. These actions enhance the ability of nuclear
plant EROs to respond to hostile action and implement emergency
plans and an adequate protective response.

(2)

•

To enhance nuclear plant EP by codifying the enhancements
implemented by industry on a voluntary basis subsequent to the
issuance of NRC Bulletin 2005-02. These actions enhance the ability
of nuclear plant EROs to respond to hostile action and implement an
adequate protective response.

•

To enhance nuclear plant EP by codifying improvements to
requirements in the areas of:
• timeliness of declaration and the content of EAL schemes;
• survivability, facilities and resources for EROs;
• alerting and notification of the public, evacuation planning and
adequate resources to implement evacuations; and,
• training through drills and exercises that reflect the current
threat environment.

General description of the activity that would be required by the licensee or
applicant in order to complete the backfit;
In general terms, the final rule will ensure that all licensees consistently
implement new and existing EP measures. Detailed analysis of the activities
and procedural changes required by the final rule are set forth in Appendix A
to the regulatory analysis. A general description of each backfit is provided
below:
•

Protection of Onsite Personnel

The final rule will require licensees to review and revise plans, procedures,
training, and guidance to address protective measures for onsite personnel
(e.g., evacuation of personnel from target buildings, accounting for personnel
after attack) in order to ensure that plant announcements are timely and
convey the onsite protective measures deemed appropriate. This provision
will affect power reactor licensees.
•

EALs for Hostile Action

The new measures will require nuclear power reactor licensees to review
their existing anticipatory EALs and update their plans, procedures, and
training as needed to confirm that they comply with the rule requirements.
•

Challenging Drills and Exercises

The final rule language will require licensees to change how they develop drill
and exercise scenarios and make related changes to the emergency plan.
Specifically, the drill and exercise scenarios must be designed to avoid
biennial exercise scenarios that become predictable or precondition EROs to
expect a sequential escalation of emergency classifications culminating in a

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 36

large radiological release. Licensees will need to submit these scenarios for
NRC review. Licensees also will be required to use scenarios that
demonstrate certain key functional skills in their exercises. This provision will
affect power reactor licensees.
•

ETE Updating

The final rule will clarify the need for licensees to review and update ETEs
following the initial licensing of a nuclear power plant and to submit them to
NRC for review. Specifically, the final rule will establish a requirement for
licensees to update ETEs on a stated frequency (i.e., every 10 years) and
when annual reviews show that the emergency planning zone (EPZ)
permanent resident population increases such that it causes the longest ETE
value for the 2-mile zone or 5-mile zone, including all affected Emergency
Response Planning Areas, or for the entire 10-mile EPZ to increase by 25
percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. This provision will affect power
reactor licensees.
•

Licensee Coordination with OROs

The final rule will require licensees to identify in their emergency plans the
assistance expected from OROs during hostile action. Licensees will need to
identify in their emergency plans the assistance expected from State, local,
and Federal agencies with responsibilities for coping with emergencies,
including hostile action at the site. These regulations require licensees to
know which OROs would respond during an emergency and how to
communicate with those OROs. This provision will affect power reactor
licensees.
•

On-Shift Staffing Analysis

This change will require licensees to perform a detailed analysis, such as a
JTA or a time motion analysis, to demonstrate that on-shift personnel can
implement the plan effectively without having tasks and responsibilities that
could prevent them from performing their emergency plan functions in a
timely manner. This provision will affect power reactor licensees.
•

ERO Augmentation and Alternative Facilities

This change will require licensees to review and revise their plans,
procedures, and training regarding ERO augmentation during hostile action.
In addition, some sites may need to lease and/or equip a new facility to serve
as an alternative facility. This provision will affect power reactor licensees.
•

Emergency Declaration Timeliness

Nuclear power reactor licensees are already complying with the final rule
language via a voluntary initiative that accomplishes the intent of the final
rule. These licensees, however, will need to review and confirm or (if

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 37

necessary) revise existing site procedures and training to reflect the revised
rule.
•

Backup Means for ANS

The final rule will require that the public ANS has backup methods for both
the alert and notification functions. Licensees must demonstrate that their
site’s alert and notification capability includes the administrative and physical
means for a backup method of public alerting and notification. This provision
will affect power reactor licensees.
(3)

Potential change in the risk to the public from the accidental off-site release of
radioactive material;
The rulemaking will not directly affect the likelihood of core damage or spent
fuel damage. The rulemaking will provide added assurance that the risk
resulting from offsite releases remains acceptably low. Although EP cannot
affect the probability of the initiating event, a high level of EP will increase the
likelihood of accident mitigation if the initiating event proceeds beyond the
need for initial operator actions. An augmented EP program will enhance the
protection of public health and safety by improving the response to initiating
events that could lead to an accidental off-site release of radioactive material
in the absence of mitigative response.

(4)

Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees;
The rulemaking will not directly affect the likelihood of core damage or spent
fuel damage. The rulemaking will provide added assurance that nuclear
industry workers are not subjected to unnecessary radiological exposures as
the result of emergency situations, including hostile action.

(5)

Installation and continuing costs associated with the backfit, including the
cost of facility downtime or the cost of construction delay;
The backfit analysis for the final rule sets forth the NRC’s estimate of the
initial costs for implementing the major elements of the final rule, and the
ongoing costs to the licensees. The estimated one-time industry net cost
associated with the backfits will be approximately $30.3 million (or
approximately $467,000 for the average nuclear power plant site), and the
annually recurring cost will be approximately $2.4 million (or approximately
$37,000 for the average nuclear power plant program). Combining these
initial and annual costs, this analysis estimates that the backfits associated
with the final rule will cost industry approximately $59.8 million (present value,
assuming a 7-percent discount rate) to $75.9 million (present value, assuming
a 3-percent discount rate).

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

(6)

Page 38

The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity,
including the relationship to final and existing regulatory requirements;
The final rule will make changes with respect to the design of a nuclear power
plant. Specifically, the changes involve the following:
•

Licensees must provide alternative facilities for use during hostile
action when onsite facilities (i.e., technical support center, operational
support center, and/or EOF) are not available (e.g., due to emergency
conditions).

•

Licensees (or the responsible offsite authorities) must demonstrate
that the site’s alert and notification capability includes the
administrative and physical means for a backup method of alerting and
notification to be used in the event that the primary ANS is unavailable.

These design changes will not affect all nuclear power plants because some
currently meet these requirements. This rule is not expected to have a
significant effect on operational complexity beyond those reflected in the
estimated costs to licensees.
(7)

The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the backfit and
the availability of such resources;
The majority of the one-time costs incurred by NRC will come from reviewing
and revising guidance documents to comply with the final rule. NRC will face
additional costs to participate in EP exercise drills, review the emergency
plans, coordinate with FEMA, develop procedures for ETE reviews, and
review initial updates of ETEs. These activities will result in one-time costs of
approximately $544,000.
The NRC will face costs of annual operations to review biennial EP exercise
scenario submittals and review ongoing updates of ETEs. These activities
will result in annual costs of approximately $100,000.

(8)

The potential impact of differences in facility type, design or age on the
relevancy and practicality of the backfit;
For nuclear power reactor licensees, the EP requirements in the final rule will
not directly relate to the facility type, design or age. Although the benefits
and costs attributable to the final rule will vary for a variety of site-specific
reasons (e.g., local population, transportation, and geography), the NRC
does not believe they will vary significantly based upon the nuclear power
reactor’s facility type, design, or age.

(9)

Whether the backfit is interim or final and, if interim, the justification for
imposing the backfit on an interim basis.
The backfit is final.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 39

In light of the substantial benefits of the final rule as summarized in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.11,
the NRC finds that the backfits contained in the final rule, when considered in the aggregate,
will constitute a substantial increase in EP.
4.4

Safety Goal Evaluation

Safety goal evaluations are applicable only to regulatory initiatives considered to be generic
safety enhancement backfits subject to the substantial additional protection standard at
10 CFR 50.109(a)(3). 5 A safety goal evaluation is designed to determine whether a
regulatory requirement should not be imposed generically on nuclear power plants because
the residual risk is already acceptably low. The current rulemaking will apply generically to
all reactors, and will provide added assurance that the public is protected from the
consequences of nuclear reactor operations. Some aspects of the rule may indirectly
qualify as generic safety enhancements because it is possible that they could indirectly
affect the likelihood of core damage or spent fuel damage, which generally are the focus of
a quantitative safety goal evaluation. However, the rulemaking will not directly affect the
likelihood of core damage or spent fuel damage because EP plans are not activated until
after a potential emergency situation has been identified. Therefore, a safety goal
evaluation is not appropriate for the final rule.
4.5

CRGR Results

This section addresses regulatory analysis information requirements for rulemaking actions
or staff positions subject to review by the CRGR. All information called for by the CRGR is
presented in this regulatory analysis, or in the Federal Register Notice for the final rule. As
a reference aid, Exhibit 4-5 provides a cross-reference between the relevant information and
its location in this document or the Federal Register Notice.

5

A safety goal evaluation is not needed, therefore, for new requirements falling within the backfit exceptions at
10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i)-(iii).

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

Page 40

Exhibit 4-5
Specific CRGR Regulatory Analysis Information Requirements
CRGR
Charter
Citation

Information Item to be Included in a Regulatory
Analysis Prepared for
CRGR Review

Where Item is Discussed

IV.B(1)

Proposed generic requirement or staff position as it is
proposed to be sent out to licensees. When the
objective or intended result of a proposed generic
requirement or staff position can be achieved by setting
a readily quantifiable standard that has an unambiguous
relationship to a readily measurable quantity and is
enforceable, the proposed requirements should specify
the objective or result to be attained rather than
prescribing how the objective or result is to be attained.

Final rule text in Federal
Register Notice.

IV.B(iii)

The sponsoring office’s position on whether the
proposed action would increase requirements or staff
positions, implement existing requirements or staff
positions, or relax or reduce existing requirements or
staff positions.

Regulatory Analysis, Section
4.1.

IV.B(iv)

The proposed method of implementation.

Regulatory Analysis, Section 6.

IV.B(vi)

Identification of the category of power reactors or nuclear
materials facilities/activities to which the generic
requirement or staff position will apply.

Regulatory Analysis, Section
3.2.2.

IV.B(vii)
IV.B(viii)

If the proposed action involves a power reactor backfit
and the exceptions at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) are not
applicable, the items required at 10 CFR 50.109(c) and
the required rationale at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3) are to be
included.

Regulatory Analysis, Section
4.3.

IV.B(x)

For proposed relaxations or decreases in current
requirements or staff positions, a rationale is to be
included for the determination that (a) the public health
and safety and the common defense and security would
be adequately protected if the proposed reduction in
requirements or positions were implemented, and (b) the
cost savings attributed to the action would be substantial
enough to justify taking the action.

Federal Register Notice for the
final rule.

IV.B(xii)

Preparation of an assessment of how the proposed
action relates to the Commission’s Safety Goal Policy
Statement.

Regulatory Analysis, Section
4.4.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

5.

Decision Rationale

5.1

Regulatory Analysis

Page 41

Relative to the “no-action” alternative, the final rule as a whole is expected to result in a net
cost of approximately $73.5 million (total present value over a 30-year period), assuming a
7-percent discount rate, or approximately $94.0 million assuming a 3-percent discount rate.
All of this cost will accrue to industry, except for approximately $2.9 million (7 percent) or
$4.2 million (3 percent) and approximately $7.3 million (7 percent) or $9.4 million (3 percent)
that will accrue to the NRC and other government agencies, respectively. The rule is
expected to result in one-time industry costs of approximately $32.0 million. This is
equivalent to approximately $485,000 for the average power reactor site, and $14,000 for
the average non-power reactor. The final rule language will generate annual industry costs
of about $2.6 million ($40,000 per nuclear power plant site). Offsetting this net cost, the rule
will result in substantial non-quantified benefits related to EP, as well as enhanced
regulatory efficiency and effectiveness. The analysis discusses these benefits in Section
4.1 of this document. Based on the NRC's assessment of the costs and benefits of the final
rule on licensee facilities, the agency has concluded that the final rule provisions are
justified.
5.2

Backfit Analysis

The NRC conducted a backfit analysis of the final rule relative to the backfit requirements in
10 CFR 50.109. The final rule constitutes a backfit because it will impose new requirements
on licensees. These new measures include developing measures and revising procedures
and training related to protection of onsite personnel; reviewing and revising plans,
procedures, and training regarding EALs; revising drill and exercise scenarios; reviewing
and updating ETEs; requiring coordination with OROs; reviewing plans, procedures, and
training regarding the assignment of tasks and responsibilities to on-shift staff; reviewing
and revising plans, procedures, and training regarding ERO augmentation; reviewing and
revising existing site procedures and training to include new timeliness requirements for
emergency declarations; and selecting and implementing a backup method of alerting and
notification to be used in the event that the primary ANS is unavailable. These measures
fall under the definition of a backfit because such efforts are new and are the result of a
change in NRC’s position.
In light of the substantial benefits of the final rule as summarized in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.11,
the NRC finds that the backfits contained in the final rule, when considered in the aggregate,
will constitute a substantial increase in EP and are justified in view of this increased
protection of the public health and safety. Although EP cannot affect the probability of the
initiating event, a high level of EP will increase the likelihood of accident mitigation if the
initiating event proceeds beyond the need for initial operator actions. An EP program,
augmented in compliance with the final EP rule, will substantially enhance public health and
safety by improving the licensee and ORO response to events that could pose a threat to
public health and safety.

Regulatory Analysis: Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations

6.

Page 42

Implementation

This section identifies how and when the final rule will be implemented, the required NRC
actions to ensure implementation, and the impact on NRC resources.
6.1

Schedule

The final rule will be effective 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
Licensees would be permitted to defer implementation of the final rule until 180 days after
the effective date of the final rule, except for the following rule changes: (1) theVXEPLWWDO
requirements under 10 CFR 50.54(q), which will become effective 60 days after the effective
date of the final rule; (2) the requirements under Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.1-7., which
each applicable licensee will be required to implement within 365 days of the later of the
date of availability of the most recent decennial census data from the U.S. Census Bureau
or the effective date of the final rule; (3) the requirements under Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.A.7., which each applicable licensee will be required to implement no later than
30 months after the effective date of the final rule; (4) the requirements under Part 50,
Appendix E, Section IV.A.9., which each applicable licensee must implement no later than
365 days after the effective date of the final rule; (5) the requirements under Part 50,
Appendix E, Section IV.D.3., which must be fully implemented within 3 years and 6 months
of the effective date of the final rule; (6) the requirements under Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.E.8.d., which each applicable licensee is required to fully implement no later than
36 months after the effective date of the final rule; and (7) the requirements under Part 50,
Appendix E, Section IV.F.2., which each applicable licensee will be required to implement
over recurring eight-year exercise cycles, with the first cycle beginning no later than
December 31, 2015.
6.2

Impacts on Other Requirements

As discussed in Section 4.1, affected licensees will experience most of the impact of the
revisions to the requirements. Nevertheless, the NRC expects the rulemaking to have a
noticeable impact on agency resources, both initially and annually thereafter. In terms of
one-time implementation costs, the NRC will face impacts to review the emergency plans
and develop Temporary Instructions, and interact with FEMA. Furthermore, the NRC must
develop procedures for ETE reviews, and review initial updates of ETEs. As shown in
Exhibit 4.3, the one-time cost to NRC to comply with the requirements set forth in the 11
initiatives will be approximately $598,000.
Additionally, the NRC expects the rulemaking to result in increased annual expenditures of
agency resources. The NRC will face annual costs to review biennial EP exercise scenario
submittals and review ongoing updates of ETEs. These activities will result in annual costs
of approximately $192,000.

Appendix A
Regulatory Analysis Assumptions, Inputs, and Results Per Facility,
by Regulatory Initiative

A.1: Protection of Onsite Personnel
NRC regulations do not currently require emergency plan provisions to protect onsite emergency responders and other onsite personnel in emergencies resulting from hostile
action. The final rule codifies generically applicable requirements similar to the changes recommended in Bulletin 2005-02 requiring licensees to develop new protective measures
(e.g., evacuation of personnel from target buildings, accounting for personnel after attack) and revise their procedures and training to ensure plant announcements are timely and
convey the onsite protective measures deemed appropriate.
Assumptions:
(1) Revised training materials (including content addressing onsite protective measures) replace existing training materials.
(2) Revised procedures (including new onsite protective measures) are integrated into the current drill and exercise program at an insignificant cost to licensees.
Cost Inputs

Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
Develop new protective
EP staff
$100.00/hr
measures
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
Review and revise emergency
EP staff
$100.00/hr
plan
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
Review and revise existing
EP staff
$100.00/hr
procedures
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
Review and revise training
$100.00/hr
EP staff
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Coordinate and develop
Manager
$150.00/hr
industry guidance (NEI White EP staff
$100.00/hr
Paper)
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Executive
$100.00/hr
Review and revise guidance
Manager
$100.00/hr
(NRC inspection guidance,
Staff
$100.00/hr
bulletin preparation)
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Sites
Affected
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
24 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
320 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(800)
(3,000)
(8,000)
(1,000)
(800)
(1,200)
(2,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(3,600)
(8,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(33,200)

0 hrs
0 hrs
200 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
200 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

(20,000)
(20,000)

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.

520 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(800)
(3,000)
(8,000)
(1,000)
(800)
(1,200)
(2,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(3,600)
(8,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(33,200)

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

8 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
372 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(3,000)
(8,000)
(400)
(800)
(1,600)
(3,000)
(8,000)
(400)
(800)
(800)
(3,000)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(800)
(600)
(2,000)
(400)
(40,200)

8 hrs
20 hrs
100 hrs
40 hrs
20 hrs
188 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

(800)
(2,000)
(10,000)
(4,000)
(2,000)
(18,800)

560 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(3,000)
(8,000)
(400)
(800)
(1,600)
(3,000)
(8,000)
(400)
(800)
(800)
(3,000)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(800)
(600)
(2,000)
(400)
(40,200)

A.2: Emergency Action Levels for Hostile Action
NRC regulations currently do not require an emergency action level scheme for hostile action and do not address the issue of anticipatory response to hostile action. For nuclear
power reactor licensees, the final rule codifies generically applicable requirements similar to the anticipatory EALs contained in the Interim Compensatory Measures Order (EA-0226) and the recommended changes in NRC Bulletin 2005-02 in Part 50, Appendix E to require licensees to consider hostile action that may adversely affect the plant in their EAL
schemes, which will allow the licensees to make event declarations based on credible threats and hostile action.
Assumptions:
(1) Current industry practice is sufficient to comply with the rule. Nonetheless, licensees must review their existing anticipatory EALs and training to confirm that they comply with
the rule requirements.
Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
Review existing EALs - Nuclear
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Power Reactor Licensees
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Review and revise EAL training Manager
$150.00/hr
Nuclear Power Reactor
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Licensees
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Review and revise emergency Manager
$150.00/hr
plan - Nuclear Power Reactor EP staff
$100.00/hr
Licensees
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Review and revise procedures - Manager
$150.00/hr
Nuclear Power Reactor
$100.00/hr
EP staff
Licensees
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Conduct initial EAL training (30
Manager
$150.00/hr
managers at 4 hour training; 12
security managers at 4 hour training; EP staff
$100.00/hr
50 ERO staff members at 2 hour
Clerical
$50.00/hr
training; one trainer per 30 trainees)
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise guidance
Executive
$100.00/hr
(six month effort for Bulletin
Manager
$100.00/hr
preparation) and endorse
Staff
$100.00/hr
security EALs in a regulatory
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
guide
Total NRC Implementation
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
State and Local Government - Executive
$100.00/hr
Conduct initial ORO training (10 Manager
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
staff per site at 2 hour training; Staff
Clerical
$100.00/hr
one trainer per 30 trainees)
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total State and Local Implementation Cost
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Sites
Affected
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

65
65
65
65
65

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
2 hrs/site
24 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
200 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
176 hrs/site
104 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
818 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(8,000)
(400)
(400)
(3,600)
(8,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(800)
(6,000)
(20,000)
(2,000)
(1,600)
(26,400)
(10,400)
(200)
(91,400)

100 hrs
120 hrs
560 hrs
60 hrs
100 hrs
940 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
22 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
22 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

1,780 hrs

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) State and Local Government labor rates assumed to be the same as NRC wage rates.
(3) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(8,000)
(400)
(400)
(3,600)
(8,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(800)
(6,000)
(20,000)
(2,000)
(1,600)
(26,400)
(10,400)
(200)
(91,400)

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule
Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
24 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
2 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
2 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
2 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
70 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(600)
(2,400)
(800)
(300)
(800)
(300)
(800)
(400)
(300)
(800)
(7,500)

(10,000)
(12,000)
(56,000)
(6,000)
(10,000)
(94,000)

0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

-

(2,200)
(2,200)

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$

-

70 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(600)
(2,400)
(800)
(300)
(800)
(300)
(800)
(400)
(300)
(800)
(7,500)

A.3: Challenging Drills and Exercises
The final rule language adopts elements of NRC Bulletin 2005-02 and requires licensees to revise drill and exercise scenarios. Specifically, the drill and exercise scenarios must
be designed to avoid biennial exercise scenarios that become predictable or precondition emergency response organizations to expect a sequential escalation of emergency
classifications culminating in a large radiological release. Licensees must submit these scenarios for NRC review. In addition, licensees must use certain scenarios and
demonstrate certain key functional skills in their exercises and track implementation of the various scenario objectives.
Assumptions:

(1) All sites develop drill and exercise plans and conduct initial exercises by the end of CY09 in response to NRC Bulletin 2005-02.
(2) NRC reviews biennial exercise scenarios as they are used by licensees (annual cost, assuming 32.5 are submitted per year).
Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Develop and review 8-year plan Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review and update emergency Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
plan and exercise objective
EP staff
$100.00/hr
tracking scheme
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Conduct initial hostile action pilot exercise Executive
$200.00/hr
(4 executives at 8 hour tabletop and
Manager
$150.00/hr
exercise, 30 managers at 8 hour tabletop
$100.00/hr
and exercise; 100 ERO and security staff EP staff
members at 4 hour exercise)
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
Track compliance with required Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
exercise scenario elements
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Submit scenario to NRC for
Executive
$200.00/hr
review
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Operations Cost

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Sites
Affected

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
32 hrs/site
240 hrs/site
400 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
1,148 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

65
65
65
65
65
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(6,000)
(8,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(800)
(12,000)
(16,000)
(800)
(4,000)
(6,400)
(36,000)
(40,000)
(800)
($134,800)
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule
Units

(1,600)
0 hrs/site
(6,000)
8 hrs/site
(8,000) 40 hrs/site
(800)
8 hrs/site
(1,600)
8 hrs/site
(800)
0 hrs/site
(12,000)
8 hrs/site
(16,000) 40 hrs/site
(800)
8 hrs/site
(4,000)
8 hrs/site
(6,400)
0 hrs/site
(36,000)
0 hrs/site
(40,000)
0 hrs/site
(800)
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
($134,800) 128 hrs/site
-

0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
88 hrs/site

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(4,000)
(400)
(800)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(400)
(800)
($12,800)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(4,000)
(400)
(800)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(400)
(800)
($12,800)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(4,000)
(1,200)
(1,600)
(400)
(800)
($9,200)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(4,000)
(600)
(800)
(200)
(400)
($7,200)

Challenging Drills and Exercises (continued)
Cost Inputs

Requirement

Unit Cost

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Sites
Affected

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

Units

NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise guidance
Executive
$100.00/hr
0 hrs
$
0 hrs
$100.00/hr
0 hrs
$
0 hrs
(Bulletin 2005-02 preparation) Manager
Staff
$100.00/hr
300 hrs
$
(30,000)
0 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
0 hrs
$
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
0 hrs
$
0 hrs
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Compile RIS 2006-12 (review Executive
Manager
$100.00/hr
16 hrs
$
(1,600)
0 hrs
NEI White Paper)
Staff
$100.00/hr
360 hrs
$
(36,000)
0 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
0 hrs
Executive
$100.00/hr
16 hrs
$
(1,600)
0 hrs
Review NEI-06-04, Rev. 0
Manager
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
0 hrs
Staff
$100.00/hr
240 hrs
$
(24,000)
0 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
0 hrs
Review and endorse NEI-06-04, Executive
$100.00/hr
16 hrs
$
(1,600)
0 hrs
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
0 hrs
Rev. 1 and review RIS 2008-08 Manager
Staff
$100.00/hr
160 hrs
$
(16,000)
0 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
0 hrs
Participate in first 10 initial
Executive
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
0 hrs
Manager
$100.00/hr
80 hrs
$
(8,000)
0 hrs
hostile action pilot drills
Staff
$100.00/hr
234 hrs
$
(23,400)
0 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
0 hrs
$
0 hrs
Participate in last 55 initial
Executive
$100.00/hr
4 hrs
$
(400)
0 hrs
Manager
$100.00/hr
24 hrs
$
(2,400)
0 hrs
hostile action pilot drills
Staff
$100.00/hr
100 hrs
$
(10,000)
0 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
0 hrs
$
0 hrs
Review emergency plan and TI Executive
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Manager
$100.00/hr
16 hrs
$
(1,600)
120 hrs
and develop inspection
Staff
$100.00/hr
360 hrs
$
(36,000)
280 hrs
procedures
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
60 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
60 hrs
Executive
$100.00/hr
420 hrs
$
(42,000)
0 hrs
Interact with FEMA
Manager
$100.00/hr
420 hrs
$
(42,000)
0 hrs
Staff
$100.00/hr
4,200 hrs
$ (420,000)
0 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
20 hrs
$
(2,000)
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
200 hrs
$
(20,000)
0 hrs
6,678 hrs
$ (739,000)
520 hrs
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
Executive
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Review of biennial exercise
Manager
$100.00/hr
16 hrs
$
(1,600)
160 hrs
submittals
Staff
$100.00/hr
400 hrs
$
(40,000)
480 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8 hrs
$
(800)
0 hrs
Attorney
$100.00/hr
0 hrs
$
0 hrs
Total NRC Operations Cost
432 hrs
$
(43,200)
640 hrs
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Executive
$100.00/hr
420 hrs
$
(42,000)
0 hrs
FEMA - Review and revise
$100.00/hr
420 hrs
$
(42,000)
0 hrs
guidance (REP program FEMA Manager
Staff
$100.00/hr
4,200
hrs
$
(420,000)
0 hrs
exercise evaluation criteria) - 3
Clerical
$100.00/hr
420
hrs
$
(42,000)
0 hrs
FTE per year for staff
Attorney
$100.00/hr
420 hrs
$
(42,000)
0 hrs
State and Local - Participate in Executive
$100.00/hr
65
32 hrs/site
$
(3,200)
0 hrs/site
Manager
$100.00/hr
65
240 hrs/site
$
(24,000)
0 hrs/site
initial hostile action pilot drills
Staff
$100.00/hr
65
400 hrs/site
$
(40,000)
0 hrs/site
Clerical
$100.00/hr
65
16 hrs/site
$
(1,600)
0 hrs/site
Attorney
$100.00/hr
65
0 hrs/site
$
0 hrs/site
Total State, Local, and FEMA Implementation Cost
6,568 hrs
$ (656,800)
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
State and Local - Participate in Executive
$100.00/hr
8
n/a
16 hrs/site
$100.00/hr
8
n/a
120 hrs/site
hostile action drills once every 8 Manager
Staff
$100.00/hr
8
n/a
200 hrs/site
years
Clerical
$100.00/hr
8
n/a
8 hrs/site
Attorney
8
$100.00/hr
n/a
0 hrs/site
Total State, Local, and FEMA Operations Cost
344 hrs
14,826 hrs
1,720 hrs
TOTAL
Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) FEMA labor rates assumed to be the same as NRC wage rates.
(3) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.
(4) Not all 65 sites would incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site would be less than the
cost per affected site (both figures shown above).

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(12,000)
(28,000)
(6,000)
(6,000)
(52,000)

$
$
$
$
$
$

(16,000)
(48,000)
(64,000)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

-

$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(12,000)
(20,000)
(800)
(34,400)

A.4: Evacuation Time Estimate Updating
Under existing regulations, applicants and licensees must provide estimates of the time required to evacuate the public from the plume exposure pathway emergency planning
zone (EPZ). The final rule clarifies the need to review and update the evacuation time estimates (ETEs) following the initial licensing of a nuclear power plant. Specifically, the
final rule establishes a requirement for licensees to evaluate an EPZ's population and to update ETEs on a stated frequency (i.e., every 10 years) and when annual reviews show
that the EPZ permanent resident population increases such that certain ETE values increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less, from the licensee's currently approved
or updated ETE.
Assumptions:
(1) All sites require an initial update to ETEs using 2010 Census data.
(2) Although sites reassess population annually, ETE updates are needed once every 10 years due to new Census data.

Cost Inputs

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

Sites
Affected

Units

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Establish process to obtain and Executive
$200.00/hr
$150.00/hr
analyze annual Census Bureau Manager
EP staff
$100.00/hr
population updates for EPZ
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review existing ETE
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr

65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
32 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(3,200)
(800)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,200)
(3,200)
(800)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)

Initial update to existing ETEs

65

n/a

1 estimate/site

$

(100,000) $

(100,000)

100 hrs/site

$

(111,200) $

(111,200)

(600)
(800)
(800)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)
(10,000)
(18,200)

Requirement

Unit Cost

$

100,000

Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
Executive
$200.00/hr
Obtain and analyze annual
Manager
$150.00/hr
Census Bureau population
EP staff
$100.00/hr
updates for EPZ
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Review Updated ETE
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Update ETEs
$
100,000
Total Industry Operations Cost
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Develop procedures for ETE
Executive
$100.00/hr
Manager
$100.00/hr
reviews (Standard Review
Staff
$100.00/hr
Plan)
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
Review initial updates of ETEs Executive
Manager
$100.00/hr
Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
Executive
Review ongoing updates of
Manager
ETEs
Staff
Clerical
Attorney
Total NRC Operations Cost

$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr

Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

65
65
65
65
65
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
65

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
72 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

65
65
65
65
65

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

0 hrs
16 hrs
80 hrs
16 hrs
8 hrs
4 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
176 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(8,000)
(1,600)
(800)
(400)
(800)
(4,000)
(400)
(17,600)

6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

4 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
56 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$

(400)
(800)
(4,000)
(400)
(5,600)

1 time/10 years

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(600)
(800)
(80)
(120)
(400)
(80)
(10,000)
(12,080)

Evacuation Time Estimate Updating (continued)
Cost Inputs

Requirement

Unit Cost

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Sites
Affected

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
$
(400)
Executive
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
4 hrs/site
Review initial ETEs
$
(800)
Manager
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
8 hrs/site
$
(4,000)
Staff
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
40 hrs/site
$
Clerical
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
0 hrs/site
Attorney
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
4 hrs/site
$
(400)
Total State and Local Government Implementation Cost
56 hrs
($5,600)
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
$
(400)
Review updated ETEs
Executive
$100.00/hr
6.5
n/a
4 hrs/site
$
(800)
Manager
$100.00/hr
6.5
n/a
8 hrs/site
$
(4,000)
Staff
$100.00/hr
6.5
n/a
40 hrs/site
$
Clerical
$100.00/hr
6.5
n/a
0 hrs/site
Attorney
$100.00/hr
6.5
n/a
4 hrs/site
$
(400)
Total State and Local Government Operations Cost
n/a
56 hrs
$
(5,600)
516 hrs
TOTAL
Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.
(3) "n/a" means that the issue was not in the Orders or the Bulletin.
(4) State and local government labor rates assumed to be the same as NRC wage rates.
(5) Not all 65 sites would incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site would be less than the cost per affected site
(both figures shown above).

A.5: Licensee Coordination with Offsite Response Organizations
The current regulations do not require licensees to coordinate with offsite response organizations (OROs) to identify the assistance expected from State and local agencies during
hostile action directed at the site. The final rule implements elements of Commission Order EA-02-26 explicitly requiring licensees to coordinate with OROs to identify in their
emergency plans the resources expected from offsite personnel during hostile action. Licensees may need to review and update memoranda of understanding and letters of
agreement executed with OROs.
Assumptions:
None.
Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin

Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and update letters of
Executive
$200.00/hr
agreement and memoranda of Manager
$150.00/hr
understanding with OROs
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise guidance
Executive
$100.00/hr
(Temporary Instruction
Manager
$100.00/hr
2515/148 Rev 2)
Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
State and Local Government
Executive
$100.00/hr
Manager
$100.00/hr
coordination
Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Executive
$100.00/hr
State and Local Government
Manager
$100.00/hr
review and revise plan and
Staff
$100.00/hr
procedures
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total State and Local Government Implementation Cos
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Sites
Affected
65
65
65
65
65

65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

Units

16 hrs/site
31 hrs/site
62 hrs/site
6 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
115 hrs/site

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site
$
$
$
$
$
$

(3,200)
(4,650)
(6,200)
(300)
(14,350)

8 hrs
30 hrs
290 hrs
40 hrs
10 hrs
378 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

34 hrs/site
68 hrs/site
136 hrs/site
14 hrs/site
14 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
530 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,023 hrs

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.
(3) FEMA labor rates assumed to be the same as NRC wage rates.
(4) State and local government labor rates assumed to be the same as NRC labor rates.

$
$
$
$
$
$

(3,200)
(4,650)
(6,200)
(300)
(14,350)

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule
Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

0 hrs/site
3 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
19 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$

(450)
(1,600)
(2,050)

(800)
(3,000)
(29,000)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(37,800)

0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$

-

(3,400)
(6,800)
(13,600)
(1,400)
(1,400)
(800)
(4,000)
(16,000)
(1,600)
(4,000)
(53,000)

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
34 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
110 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(3,400)
(400)
(800)
(4,000)
(800)
(1,600)
(11,000)

129 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

(450)
(1,600)
(2,050)

A.6: On-Shift Staffing Analysis
The current regulations do not clearly state that on-shift nuclear power reactor personnel assigned to emergency plan implementation must not have tasks and responsibilities that
would prevent them from performing their emergency plan functions. The final rule codifies generically applicable requirements similar to elements of the Commission Order EA 02-26
requiring that on-shift emergency response personnel must not have tasks and responsibilities that interfere with primary emergency response functions. To comply, the nuclear
power plant licensees must conduct a detailed analysis, such as a job task analysis or time motion analysis. In addition, this change requires that nuclear power reactor licensees
review plans, procedures, and training regarding assignment of multiple responsibilities, and re-assign responsibilities if necessary.
Assumptions:
(1) This analysis assumes that some plans, procedures, and training must be revised and some re-assignment is necessary because the regulations may exceed the 2002 Order.
Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Develop industry-wide job task Executive
$200.00/hr
analysis template
$150.00/hr
Manager
$100.00/hr
EP Staff
$50.00/hr
Clerical
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Conduct job task analysis
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review and revise emergency Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
plan
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review and revise procedures Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review and revise training
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Conduct initial training
Executive
$200.00/hr
(30 staff at 4 hour training; one Manager
$150.00/hr
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
trainer per 30 trainees)
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise guidance
Executive
$100.00/hr
Manager
$100.00/hr
(Temporary Instructions, NEI
Staff
$100.00/hr
job task analysis template)
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Sites
Affected
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
320 hrs/site
32 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
120 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
120 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
972 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(6,000)
(16,000)
(800)
(4,000)
(1,600)
(6,000)
(32,000)
(1,600)
(4,000)
(1,200)
(12,000)
(800)
(600)
(12,000)
(100,200)

8 hrs
30 hrs
290 hrs
40 hrs
10 hrs
378 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

(800)
(3,000)
(29,000)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(37,800)

1,350 hrs

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule
Units

24 hrs/site
72 hrs/site
240 hrs/site
48 hrs/site
48 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
(1,600)
0 hrs/site
(6,000)
8 hrs/site
(16,000) 40 hrs/site
(800)
0 hrs/site
(4,000)
8 hrs/site
(1,600)
0 hrs/site
(6,000)
8 hrs/site
(32,000) 80 hrs/site
(1,600)
0 hrs/site
(4,000)
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
(1,200)
0 hrs/site
(12,000) 40 hrs/site
(800)
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
(600)
(12,000)
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
(100,200) 860 hrs/site

16 hrs
40 hrs
480 hrs
80 hrs
40 hrs
656 hrs

1,516 hrs

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(4,800)
(10,800)
(24,000)
(2,400)
(4,800)
(800)
(2,400)
(16,000)
(2,000)
(1,600)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)
(1,200)
(8,000)
(800)
(4,000)
(89,600)

$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(4,000)
(48,000)
(8,000)
(4,000)
(65,600)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(4,800)
(10,800)
(24,000)
(2,400)
(4,800)
(800)
(2,400)
(16,000)
(2,000)
(1,600)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)
(1,200)
(8,000)
(800)
(4,000)
(89,600)

A.7: Emergency Response Organization Augmentation and Alternative Facilities
The current regulations do not require licensees to identify alternative facilities to support emergency response organization (ERO) augmentation during hostile action. The final
rule codifies generically applicable requirements similar to those elements of Commission Order EA-02-26 and industry initiatives subsequent to NRC Bulletin 2005-02 directing
licensees to provide alternative facilities for use during hostile action when onsite facilities (i.e., technical support center, operational support center, and/or emergency operations
facility) are not available (e.g., due to emergency conditions). This change requires licensees to review and revise their plans, procedures, and training regarding ERO
augmentation during a hostile action. In addition, some sites may need to lease and equip a new facility to serve as its alternative facility.
Assumptions:
(1) This analysis assumes that most sites would use present facilities, i.e. EOF, back up EOF, back up TSC.
Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin

Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise emergency Executive
$200.00/hr
plan
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review and revise procedures Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$250.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Review and revise training
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
$2,000/site
Equip alternative facility with
necessary capabilities
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
$1,000/site
Maintain procedures and
equipment for alternative
facilities
Total Industry Operations Cost
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Executive
$100.00/hr
Review and revise guidance
Manager
$100.00/hr
(Temporary Instructions,
$100.00/hr
Bulletin 2005-02 preparation) Staff
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Sites
Affected
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
24 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

224 hrs/site

$

(1,600)
(3,600)
(8,000)
(2,000)
(2,000)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)
-

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.

702 hrs

Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(3,600)
(8,000)
(2,000)
(2,000)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)
-

10 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
24 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
1 per site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(2,000)
(3,000)
(4,000)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(1,200)
(1,600)
(1,200)
(1,600)
($2,000)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(2,000)
(3,000)
(4,000)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(1,200)
(1,600)
(1,200)
(1,600)
($2,000)

(23,200) $

(23,200)

183 hrs/site

$

(21,800) $

(21,800)

1 per site

$

(1,000) $

(1,000)

$

(1,000) $

(1,000)

65

8 hrs
30 hrs
390 hrs
40 hrs
10 hrs
478 hrs

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

(800)
(3,000)
(39,000)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(47,800)

0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs

183 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

-

A.8.a: Amended Emergency Plan Change Process - Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees
Current regulations require nuclear power reactor licensees to "maintain in effect" their emergency plan. The final rule language clarifies the existing rule language by requiring
nuclear power reactor licensees: to maintain capabilities and resources relative to the emergency plan, ensure changes to the approved emergency plan are properly evaluated,
and ensure that proposed changes that reduce the effectiveness of the plan receive prior review by the NRC. To comply with the final rule, nuclear power reactor licensees may
need to revise procedures and training to address use of the license amendment process for emergency plan changes that result in reductions in effectiveness. In addition, for
emergency plan changes that do not result in a reduction in effectiveness, nuclear power reactor licensees must submit to NRC a summary of the analysis prepared to
demonstrate the change does not reduce the effectiveness of the plan.
Assumptions:
(1) Training is only for EP and licensing staff. Training is separate from other training, but is delivered at the same time as 10 CFR 50.90 training.
(2) NRC receives 12 submittals (i.e., emergency plan changes that reduce the effectiveness of the plan) per year. The base cost to licensees to prepare 10 CFR 50.90 submittals
is comparable to the cost of preparing current emergency plan change requests.
(3) One of the 12 submittals results in a hearing. Hearings impose incremental costs on licensees and NRC.
(4) NRC annual cost associated with participating in hearing process includes time of ASLB judges and staff.
Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin

Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise existing
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
procedures - Nuclear power
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
reactor licensees
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Executive
$200.00/hr
Review and revise training Manager
$150.00/hr
Nuclear power reactor
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
licensees
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
Participate in hearing process Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$250.00/hr
$200.00/hr
Submit summary of analysis of Executive
$150.00/hr
changes to emergency plan not Manager
EP
Staff
$100.00/hr
resulting in reduction in
Clerical
$50.00/hr
effectiveness
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$250.00/hr
Total Industry Operations Cost
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
$100.00/hr
Participate in hearing process Executive
Manager
$100.00/hr
Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Operations Cost
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

Sites
Affected

Units

65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

0 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
60 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
200 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(2,400)
(6,000)
(2,000)
(1,600)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(18,200)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(2,400)
(6,000)
(2,000)
(1,600)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(18,200)

1
1
1
1
1
1
65
65
65
65
65
65

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

48 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
320 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
2 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
890 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(9,600)
(24,000)
(16,000)
(2,000)
(16,000)
(80,000)
(100)
(147,700)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(148)
(369)
(246)
(31)
(246)
(1,231)
(100)
(2,371)

1
1
1
1
1

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

80 hrs/site
160 hrs/site
320 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
320 hrs/site
920 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

(8,000)
(16,000)
(32,000)
(4,000)
(32,000)
(92,000)

Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

2,010 hrs

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.
(3) "n/a" means that the issue was not in the Orders or the Bulletin.
(4) Not all 65 sites would incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site would be less than the cost per affected site
(both figures shown above).

A.8.b: Amended Emergency Plan Change Process - Non-Power Reactors
Current regulations require non-power reactors to "maintain in effect" their emergency plan. The final rule language clarifies the existing rule language by requiring non-power
reactors: to maintain capabilities and resources relative to the emergency plan, ensure changes to the approved emergency plan are properly evaluated, and ensure that proposed
changes that reduce the effectiveness of the plan receive prior review by the NRC. To comply with the final rule, non-power reactors may need to revise procedures and training to
address use of the license amendment process for emergency plan changes that result in reductions in effectiveness. In addition, for emergency plan changes that do not result in
a reduction in effectiveness, non-power reactors must submit to the NRC a summary of the analysis prepared to demonstrate the change does not reduce the effectiveness of the
plan.
Assumptions:
(1) Training is only for EP staff. Training is separate from other training, but is delivered at the same time as other EP training.
(2) NRC does not receive any 10 CFR 50.90 submittals (i.e., emergency plan change that reduces the effectiveness of the plan) per year.
Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise existing
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
procedures - Non-power
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
reactors
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review and revise training Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
Non-power reactors
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin
Sites
Affected

Units

32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule
Units

0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
160 hrs/site

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(8,000)
(2,000)
(4,000)
(14,000)

160 hrs

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.
(3) "n/a" means that the issue was not in the Orders or the Bulletin.
(4) Not all 32 sites would incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site would be less than the cost per affected site
(which is shown above).

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(8,000)
(2,000)
(4,000)
(14,000)

A.9: Emergency Declaration Timeliness
The current emergency preparedness regulations do not establish timeliness criteria for the emergency declaration process. The final rule requires nuclear power reactor licensees
to have the capability to assess, classify, and declare an emergency within 15 minutes of the availability of information that an EAL has been exceeded and to promptly declare the
emergency as soon as possible following identification of the appropriate classification. Nuclear power reactor licensees are already complying with the final rule language via a
voluntary initiative that accomplishes the intent of the final rule. These licensees, however, must review and revise existing site procedures and training to include the new
timeliness requirements for emergency declarations.
Assumptions:
(1) New training for emergency declaration timeliness is integrated within the current training program coursework and delivered at the same time as other EP training without
extending the duration of training courses.
(2) Sites do not incur operating costs because the final rule only requires the capability to classify and declare an emergency within 15 minutes.
Incremental Effort Due to Voluntary Initiative
(PI)

Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise existing
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
procedures
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Review and revise training
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cost
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise guidance
Executive
$100.00/hr
Manager
$100.00/hr
(e.g., withdraw EPPOS-2,
Staff
$100.00/hr
update NEI-99-02)
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL

Sites
Affected
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

0 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
10 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
20 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
190 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(3,000)
(8,000)
(1,000)
(1,500)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(18,500)

0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

-

Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.

190 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(3,000)
(8,000)
(1,000)
(1,500)
(4,000)
(1,000)
(18,500)

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule
Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
40 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(600)
(1,600)
(600)
(1,600)
(4,400)

0 hrs
16 hrs
80 hrs
40 hrs
20 hrs
156 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,600)
(8,000)
(4,000)
(2,000)
(15,600)

196 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(600)
(1,600)
(600)
(1,600)
(4,400)

A.10: Emergency Operations Facility - Performance Based Approach
Current regulations do not address EOF distance criteria or the capabilities and functional requirements for a consolidated EOF (such as capabilities to handle simultaneous
events at two or more sites). The final rule establishes a performance standard for single-site or consolidated EOFs and for licensees that plan to consolidate multiple EOFs into
one facility. The analysis assumes there are no incremental costs to licensees for this final rule change because the rule does not require any currently approved EOFs to be
relocated or consolidation of EOFs. Rather, a licensee may voluntarily choose to pursue consolidation only if the incremental savings exceed the incremental costs.
Assumptions:
(1) Consolidation of EOFs is optional. Therefore, the analysis does not calculate the incremental costs or savings incurred by licensees resulting from EOF consolidation.
(2) NRC incurs costs to revise guidance.
Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin

Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

Sites
Affected

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise guidance
Executive
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
(NUREG 0696, NUREG 0737 Manager
Staff
$100.00/hr
supplement 1)
Clerical
$100.00/hr
Attorney
$100.00/hr
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
None.
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL
Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.
(3) "n/a" means that the issue was not in the Orders or the Bulletin.

Units

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule
Units

20 hrs
80 hrs
360 hrs
40 hrs
40 hrs
540 hrs

540 hrs

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site

$
$
$
$
$
$

(2,000)
(8,000)
(36,000)
(4,000)
(4,000)
(54,000)

A.11: Backup Means for Alert and Notification Systems (ANS)
Existing regulations and guidance do not address requirements for backup alerting and notification capabilities when a major portion of the primary means is unavailable. The final
rule requires licensees to demonstrate that the alert and notification capability includes a backup means of alert and notification in the event that the primary ANS is unavailable.
Assumptions:
(1) Twenty-one sites already have backup power to sirens as a backup alerting mechanism. However, these sites are not fully compliant with the final rule and will need to
upgrade their siren activation system in order to comply.
(2) Thirty-two sites already use route alerting as a backup means of alerting, which complies with the final rule. These sites, however, need to review and verify their procedures
to ensure there are adequate resources during hostile action.
(3) Twelve sites do not have any backup means of alerting. Six of the sites need to implement backup power to sirens, while the other 6 need to implement route alerting as
backup.
(4) Thirty-two sites have backup Emergency Alert System (EAS) capabilities for public notification.
(5) Thirty-three sites do not have a backup EAS capability. These sites incur incremental costs to acquire a backup EAS capability.
Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin

Cost Inputs
Requirement

Unit Cost

INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Determine in conjunction with Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
offsite officials and design
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
means for backup ANS
Engineer
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Implement backup alerting
Upgrade sirens
system
$10,000/siren
Implement route alerting
$50,000/site
Executive
$200.00/hr
Review and verify existing ANS Manager
$150.00/hr
backup
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Implement back-up to siren
$50,000/site
activation system
Implement EAS backup
$50,000/site
notification system
Develop administrative
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
controls, maintenance
EP
Staff
$100.00/hr
procedures, training and testing
$50.00/hr
program for means of backup Clerical
Licensing
$100.00/hr
ANS (full program)
Develop administrative
Executive
$200.00/hr
Manager
$150.00/hr
controls, maintenance
$100.00/hr
procedures, training and testing EP Staff
$50.00/hr
program for means of backup Clerical
Licensing
$100.00/hr
ANS (partial program)
Executive
$200.00/hr
Revise FEMA REP-10 ANS
Manager
$150.00/hr
EP Staff
$100.00/hr
design report
Clerical
$50.00/hr
Licensing
$100.00/hr
Total Industry Implementation Cos
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
Maintain back-up to siren
system
$200/siren
Maintain route alerting system
$5,000/site
Maintain back-up to EAS
Total Industry Operations Cost
NRC IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
Review and revise guidance
Executive
Manager
(Inspection procedures)
Staff
Clerical
Attorney
Total NRC Implementation Cost
NRC OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.

$10,000/site
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr
$100.00/hr

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

Sites
Affected

Units

45
45
45
45
45
45

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

40 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
240 hrs/site
240 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$

6

n/a

50 sirens/site

$

6
53
53
53
53
53
21

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

1 plan/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
40 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
1 system/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(50,000)
(1,200)
(4,000)
(800)
(50,000)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(4,615)
(978)
(3,262)
(652)
(16,154)

33

n/a

1 system/site

$

(50,000) $

(25,385)

12
12
12
12
12
21
21
21
21
21
33
33
33
33
33

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

30 hrs/site
60 hrs/site
360 hrs/site
0 hrs/site
30 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
80 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
8 hrs/site
4 hrs/site
24 hrs/site
240 hrs/site
16 hrs/site
24 hrs/site
1,604 hrs/site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

27

n/a

50 sirens/site

38

n/a

65

Units

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site
(8,000)
(12,000)
(24,000)
(24,000)
(400)
(4,000)

$
$
$
$
$
$

(5,538)
(8,308)
(16,615)
(16,615)
(277)
(2,769)

(500,000) $

(46,154)

(6,000)
(9,000)
(36,000)
(3,000)
(1,600)
(1,200)
(8,000)
(400)
(800)
(800)
(3,600)
(24,000)
(800)
(2,400)
(826,000)

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(1,108)
(1,662)
(6,646)
(554)
(517)
(388)
(2,585)
(129)
(258)
(406)
(1,828)
(12,185)
(406)
(1,218)
(177,212)

$

(10,000) $

(4,154)

1 system/site

$

(5,000) $

(2,923)

n/a

1 system/site

$
$

(10,000) $
(25,000) $

(10,000)
(17,077)

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

8 hrs
20 hrs
100 hrs
8 hrs
20 hrs
156 hrs

$
$
$
$
$
$

(800)
(2,000)
(10,000)
(800)
(2,000)
(15,600)

Backup Means for Alert and Notification Systems (continued)
Incremental Effort Due to Order & Bulletin

Cost Inputs

Requirement

Unit Cost

Sites
Affected

Units

Savings
Savings (Cost)
(Cost) Per
Per Average
Affected Site
Site

Additional Incremental Effort Due to Final Rule

Units

OTHER GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION (ONE-TIME)
FEMA to review and approve Executive
0 hrs/site
$100.00/hr
33
n/a
Manager
$100.00/hr
33
n/a
8 hrs/site
revised FEMA REP-10 ANS
Staff
$100.00/hr
33
n/a
160 hrs/site
Clerical
$100.00/hr
33
n/a
8 hrs/site
Attorney
33
0 hrs/site
$100.00/hr
n/a
FEMA to review and revise
Executive
$100.00/hr
n/a
8 hrs
$100.00/hr
n/a
40 hrs
guidance (REP-10, Guidance Manager
Staff
$100.00/hr
n/a
240 hrs
Memorandum AN-1, REP
Clerical
$100.00/hr
n/a
16 hrs
program manual, Civil
Attorney
40 hrs
$100.00/hr
n/a
Preparedness Guide 1-17)
State and Local Government
Executive
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
34 hrs
Manager
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
68 hrs
coordination
Staff
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
136 hrs
Clerical
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
14 hrs
Attorney
65
14 hrs
$100.00/hr
n/a
State and Local Government
Executive
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
8 hrs
Manager
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
40 hrs
review and revise plan and
Staff
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
160 hrs
procedures
Clerical
$100.00/hr
65
n/a
16 hrs
Attorney
65
40 hrs
$100.00/hr
n/a
Total Other Government Implementation Cos
1,050 hrs
OTHER GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (ANNUAL)
None.
TOTAL
2,810 hrs
Notes:
(1) Hour estimates based on judgment of NRC staff.
(2) See discussion of methodology in Section 3.2 of the Regulatory Analysis.
(3) "n/a" means that the issue was not in the Orders or the Bulletin.
(4) FEMA labor rates assumed to be the same as NRC wage rates.
(5) Not all 65 sites would incur certain costs resulting from the provision. As a result, the cost for the average site would be less than the
cost per affected site (both figures shown above).

Savings (Cost)
Savings (Cost)
Per Affected Site Per Average Site
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(800)
(16,000)
(800)
(800)
(4,000)
(24,000)
(1,600)
(4,000)
(3,400)
(6,800)
(13,600)
(1,400)
(1,400)
(800)
(4,000)
(16,000)
(1,600)
(4,000)
(105,000)