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

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

ML041550395
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/13/2004
From:	Beckner W NRC/NRR/DIPM/IROB
To:
Casto G NUEPPO 415-4072
References
TAC MC3249 RIS-03-018, Suppl 1
Preceding documents:	ML052640254 (18 October 2005) ML051180469 (29 April 2005) ML041550395 (13 July 2004) ML032580518 (8 October 2003)
Download: ML041550395 (7)

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 13, 2004 NRC 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 have permanently 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) to supplement 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) changes and 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 converting EALs 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 practices for 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 power licensees 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 Nuclear Power Reactors, Revision 2 (dated October 1982), Revision 3 (dated August 1992), and Revision 4 (dated October 2003).

RIS 2003-18 describes the 10 CFR Part 50 sections and guidance references in detail, as they pertain 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 by clarifying 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 as reinforced 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 Expectations As discussed in RIS 2003-18, the staff recognizes that certain EAL changes do not warrant NRC 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 is recommended 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 CFR 2.101(a)(1), is often useful prior to the submittal of proposed EAL changes. The conference serves to clarify the NRCs expectations for documentation and allows the licensee to understand the process by which the change will be evaluated, including NRC time estimations for completion of the review.

Submittal Documentation Methods which may provide for a more efficient and timely review process were discussed in the 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 EAL

change, 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 contents

• Current EAL scheme in use

• Proposed EAL scheme on which the EAL change is based

• Cross-reference comparing scheme basis (NUMARC, NEI) to proposed EAL change(s)

• Specific discussion for the identification of differences and deviations from the proposed EAL scheme bases, including how changes are indicated for each difference and deviation

• Description of operational modes, as applicable to the specific unit(s)

• Discussion of applicable State and local government officials who have review and agreement 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 officials is 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 higher or 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 the basis 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 information be 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 is altered 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 include the 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 encouraged by 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 adopt the 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 Federal Register 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 1996 The NRC has determined that this action is not subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTIFICATION

This RIS does not request any information collections and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements 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/NSIR

301-415-4072 Email: gac@nrc.gov Attachment: List of Recently Regulatory Issue Summaries

ML041550395 *See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML041550395.wpd OFFICE DPR:NSIR Tech Editor DPR:NSIR DPR:NSIR OE OGC

NAME GACasto PEKleene* EWWeis* NLMamish* JLieberman* SCole*

DATE 06/09/2004 06/09/2004 06/21/2004 06/24/2004 06/29/2004 07/02/2004 OFFICE PMAS OCIO OES:IROB:DIPM A:SC:OES:IROB:DIPM C:IROB:DIPM

NAME DLMcCain BCStMary CDPetrone WDBeckner/for WDBeckner DATE 07/072004 07/18/2004 07/12/2004 07/13/2004 07/13/2004

Attachment RIS 2003-18, Sup 1 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED

NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARIES

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Regulatory Issue Date of Summary No. Subject Issuance Issued to

_____________________________________________________________________________________

2004-11 Supporting Information Associated 06/29/2004 All submitters of proprietary with Requests For Withholding information to the Nuclear Proprietary Information Regulatory Commission.

2004-10 Preparation And Scheduling of 06/14/2004 All holders of operating licenses Operator Licensing Examinations for nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

2004-09 Status on Deferral of Active 06/07/2004 All holders of materials licenses for Regulation of Ground-water uranium and thorium recovery Protection At In Situ Leach facilities.

Uranium Extraction Facilities

2004-08 Results of the License Termination 05/28/2004 All holders of operating licenses Rule Analysis for nuclear power reactors, research and test reactors, as well as decommissioning sites.

2004-07 Release of Final Review Standard 05/19/2004 All holders of operating licenses (RS)-002, Processing for nuclear power reactors, all Applications for Early Site Permits applicants for early site permits (ESPs), and all prospective vendors of nuclear power plants in the United States.

2004-06 Independent Survey of Power 04/16/2004 All holders of operating licenses Reactor Licensees for 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 are issued by subscribing to the NRC listserver as follows:

To subscribe send an e-mail to <listproc@nrc.gov >, no subject, and the following command in the message portion:

subscribe gc-nrr firstname lastname

______________________________________________________________________________________

OL = Operating License CP = Construction Permit