View source for RIS 2003-18, Use of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels, Revision 4, Dated January 2003

{{Adams
| number = ML041550395
| issue date = 07/13/2004
| title = Use of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels, Revision 4, Dated January 2003
| author name = Beckner W
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DIPM/IROB
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = 
| docket = 
| license number = 
| contact person = Casto  G NUEPPO 415-4072
| case reference number = TAC MC3249
| document report number = RIS-03-018, Suppl 1
| document type = NRC Regulatory Issue Summary
| page count = 7
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONWASHINGTON, D.C.  20555-0001July 13, 2004NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2003-18, SUPPLEMENT 1,USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) 99-01, "

===METHODOLOGY===
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF EMERGENCY ACTION LEVELS,"REVISION 4, DATED JANUARY 2003

==ADDRESSEES==
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors and licensees that havepermanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

==INTENT==
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing this regulatory issue summary (RIS) tosupplement previously issued information in RIS 2003-18, "Use of NEI 99-01, 'Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,' Revision 4, dated January 2003."  The NRC is clarifying technical positions regarding the revision of emergency action levels (EALs).  This RIS requires no action or written response on the part of an addressee.

==BACKGROUND INFORMATION==
Recently, the NRC has reviewed licensee processes for emergency action level (EAL) changesand issued findings related to the improper implementation of EAL changes.  In one recent example, a licensee made improvements to its emergency plan change process to require approval of proposed emergency plan changes by the station regulatory affairs department and the plant operations review committee.  That licensee subsequently submitted changes to EALs which were not of sufficient detail to support NRC review.  The NRC asked the licensee to withdraw the proposed changes.  The NRC staff has received several recent prior approval submittals from licensees convertingEALs to the endorsed NEI 99-01, Revision 4 scheme.  Those submittals have been inconsistent in format and quality.  The staff has conducted a review of NRC guidance and held discussions with the industry to ensure a common understanding of expectations for implementation of EAL
revisions consistent with RIS 2003-18.  The most recent information was received from a public ML041550395 RIS 2003-18, Sup 1 workshop held on April 26, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041210096), to discuss practicesfor making EAL changes.  The NRC staff believes that additional explanation regarding documentation for proposed EAL changes could be helpful.The regulations governing the development and implementation of EALs for nuclear powerlicensees are contained in 10 CFR Part 50.  Guidance documents used to review EAL schemes are identified in Regulatory Guide 1.101, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for NuclearPower Reactors," Revision 2 (dated October 1982), Revision 3 (dated August 1992), andRevision 4 (dated October 2003). RIS 2003-18 describes the 10 CFR Part 50 sections and guidance references in detail, as theypertain to EAL revisions.  The details contained in RIS 2003-18 remain applicable to this RIS.

==SUMMARY OF ISSUE==
The purpose of this RIS is to supplement previously issued information in RIS 2003-18 byclarifying technical positions regarding the revision of EALs.  Specifically, this RIS provides clarification on the level of detail licensees need to provide to support proposed changes to EALs.  RIS 2003-18 contained staff suggestions intended to enhance the review process.

These suggestions were discussed during the April 26, 2004, public workshop.  As evidenced by recent licensee submittals for NRC prior approval of EAL changes, and asreinforced by discussion with licensees prior to and during the April 26, 2004 public workshop, licensees have not consistently provided the level of detail necessary to allow the NRC to effectively review proposed EAL changes.  Further, the information in RIS 2003-18 did not appear to provide sufficient explanation of the expectations which NRC intended for the example EAL change scenarios discussed in RIS 2003-18.  The following information was provided to the public in the April 26, 2004 workshop and may be useful to licensees preparing EAL revisions.General ExpectationsAs discussed in RIS 2003-18, the staff recognizes that certain EAL changes do not warrantNRC review and approval, and that licensees may make changes to EALs without prior NRC
approval when changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan and continue to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E.  As also discussed in RIS 2003-18, certain other types of changes, such as scheme changes from EALs based on NUREG-0654 to EALs based on NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI 99-01, should include a formal review and approval by NRC prior to implementation.  RIS 2003-18 provides detailed examples of the type of changes that should receive prior review and approval, as well as examples that are appropriate to implement in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q). Whether EAL changes warrant NRC prior approval or implementation per 50.54(q), it isrecommended that detailed documentation be compiled to justify the EAL changes.  EAL
justifications, which 
"stand alone
" in the arrangement of documentation necessary to explain RIS 2003-18, Sup 1 proposed changes, will aid in supporting an efficient review process.  Supporting information,(such as engineering studies, calculations, referenced procedures, diagrams, maps, etc.), is useful. A pre-submittal conference between the licensee and the NRC, as referenced in 10 CFR2.101(a)(1), is often useful prior to the submittal of proposed EAL changes.  The conference serves to clarify the NRC
's expectations for documentation and allows the licensee tounderstand the process by which the change will be evaluated, including NRC time estimations for completion of the review.Submittal DocumentationMethods which may provide for a more efficient and timely review process were discussed inthe April 26, 2004 public workshop.  Including the following information in EAL submittal documentation will facilitate the review process:(1) Summary Explanation A summary document, which generally explains the considerations applicable to the EALchange, provides the NRC reviewer information specific to the current EAL scheme, proposed EAL scheme, plant operational information, useful definitions applicable to understanding the EAL change, and emergency plan specific information that supports the EAL change.  Example information in the summary explanation includes:Contents in the submittal package, with an explanation for the contentsCurrent EAL scheme in useProposed EAL scheme on which the EAL change is basedCross-reference comparing scheme basis (NUMARC, NEI) to proposed EAL change(s)Specific discussion for the identification of differences and deviations from the proposedEAL scheme bases, including how changes are indicated for each difference anddeviationDescription of operational modes, as applicable to the specific unit(s)Discussion of applicable State and local government officials who have review andagreement authority for changes to EALs(2)  State/Local Government Official Agreement Documentation:
Review of and agreement with EAL changes by applicable State and local government officialsis required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.  Evidence of reviews and agreement, provided with the EAL change submittal, documents the level of explanation provided to government officials regarding the impact of the change to offsite agency emergency notifications.  For example, RIS 2003-18, Sup 1 where NUREG-0654 to NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI 99-01 scheme changes result in a higheror lower classification for a specific event, documentation should be included to show that State and Local government officials were made aware of those changes in classifications. (3) Detailed Justification To facilitate a timely EAL review, a description of each EAL difference or deviation from thebasis scheme or prior NRC-approved site-specific hybrid EAL provides sufficient detail to 
"stand alone" as justification for the proposed change.  It is recommended that supporting informationbe included (for prior approval submittals) or maintained for follow-up inspection (for 50.54(q)
implemented changes).  Supporting information includes technical document references, engineering reports, calculations, diagrams, maps, and procedures. Difference and Deviation A difference is an EAL change where the basis scheme guidance (NUREG, NUMARC, NEI)differs in wording but agrees in meaning and intent, such that classification of an event would be the same, whether using the basis scheme guidance or the site-specific proposed EAL.

Examples of differences include the use of site-specific terminology or administrative re-formatting of site-specific EALs.

A deviation is an EAL change where the basis scheme guidance differs in wording and isaltered in meaning or intent, such that classification of the event could be different between the basis scheme guidance and the site-specific proposed EAL.  Examples of deviations includethe use of altered mode applicability, altering key words or time limits, or changing words of physical reference (protected area, safety-related equipment, etc.).  Good Industry Practices
:The use of good industry practices in the preparation of EAL change documents is encouragedby the NRC.  As EAL changes occur, licensees are expected to gain experience and share information with the industry.  Assistance to licensees in the preparation of EAL change packages can be provided by the NRC during pre-submittal conferences, and may be beneficial in reducing regulatory burden through the consistent incorporation of acceptable practices by the licensee.

==BACKFIT DISCUSSION==
This RIS requires no action or written response.  Any action on the part of addressees to adoptthe information contained in this RIS is strictly voluntary and, therefore, is not a backfit under
10 CFR 50.109.  Consequently, the staff did not perform a backfit analysis.

RIS 2003-18, Sup 1 

===FEDERAL REGISTER NOTIFICATION===
A notice of opportunity for public comment on this RIS was not published in the FederalRegister because it is informational.  NRC worked with NEI, industry representatives, members of the public, and other stakeholders to obtain information which was used in the development of this RIS.SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1996The NRC has determined that this action is not subject to the Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Fairness Act of 1996.PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTIFICATIONThis RIS does not request any information collections and, therefore, is not subject to therequirements of the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).If you have any questions or wish to provide any feedback, please call the technical contact,listed below./RA/William D. Beckner, Chief Reactor Operations Branch Division of Inspection Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

===Technical Contact:===
Greg A. Casto, DPR/NSIR301-415-4072 Email:  gac@nrc.govAttachment:  List of Recently Regulatory Issue Summaries 

ML041550395*See previous concurrenceDOCUMENT NAME:  C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML041550395.wpd  OFFICEDPR:NSIRTech EditorDPR:NSIRDPR:NSIROEOGCNAMEGACastoPEKleene*EWWeis*NLMamish*JLieberman*SCole*DATE06/09/200406/09/200406/21/200406/24/200406/29/200407/02/2004OFFICEPMASOCIOOES:IROB:DIPMA:SC:OES:IROB:DIPMC:IROB:DIPMNAMEDLMcCainBCStMaryCDPetroneWDBeckner/forWDBecknerDATE07/07200407/18/200407/12/200407/13/200407/13/2004 
______________________________________________________________________________________OL = Operating License

CP = Construction PermitAttachmentRIS 2003-18, Sup 1 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUEDNRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARIES
_____________________________________________________________________________________Regulatory Issue   Date of Summary No.       Subject  IssuanceIssued to
_____________________________________________________________________________________2004-11Supporting Information Associatedwith Requests For Withholding Proprietary Information06/29/2004All submitters of proprietaryinformation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.2004-10Preparation And Scheduling ofOperator Licensing Examinations06/14/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. 2004-09Status on Deferral of ActiveRegulation of Ground-water Protection At In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities06/07/2004All holders of materials licenses foruranium and thorium recovery facilities.2004-08Results of the License TerminationRule Analysis05/28/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors, research and test reactors, as well as decommissioning sites.2004-07Release of Final Review Standard(RS)-002, "ProcessingApplications for Early Site Permits
"05/19/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors, all applicants for early site permits (ESPs), and all prospective vendors of nuclear power plants in the United States.2004-06Independent Survey of PowerReactor Licensees04/16/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.Note:NRC generic communications may be received in electronic format shortly after they areissued by subscribing to the NRC listserver as follows:To subscribe send an e-mail to <listproc@nrc.gov >, no subject, and the followingcommand in the message portion:subscribe gc-nrr firstname lastname
}}

{{RIS-Nav}}