Frequently Asked Questions/Emergency Preparedness Guidance Clarification
On this page:
A potential EPFAQ should be a question addressing issues where the regulatory guidance may not be sufficiently clear, or where consistency in application would benefit both the NRC and licensees. To be considered as an EPFAQ, the initiator shall apply the following criteria:
The question must be sufficiently generic (e.g., Does it affect more than one licensee or plant without consideration or evaluation of site-specific information?).
The question does not involve unresolved inspection issues, enforcement actions, allegations, or other situations covered by existing regulatory processes.
The question does not involve classified, safeguards, or official use only information.
The question does not request interpretation of NRC regulations, clarification of guidance not yet published as final, or NEI/Industry documents submitted but not endorsed by the NRC.
The question relates to guidance applicable to licensees. Questions related to the development, implementation or evaluation of offsite emergency plans and preparedness are the responsibility of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), per the FEMA/NRC Memorandum of Understanding contained in Appendix A to 44 CFR 353, and will not be accepted under this EPFAQ process.
The question does not request clarification of on-going licensing activities or issues processed by the licensee in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q) or Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
- The question does not pertain to the EP Performance Indicators, Baseline EP Inspection Procedures, or Appendix Manual Chapter 0609 (EP Significance Determination Process).
If all of the above criteria are met, then an EPFAQ is appropriate.
Disclaimer: The information in any response to an email sent to this address is provided as a public service and solely for informational purposes and is not, nor should be deemed as, an official NRC position, opinion or guidance, or "a written interpretation by the General Counsel" under 10 CFR 50.3, on any matter to which the information may relate. The opinions, representations, positions, interpretations, guidance or recommendations which may be expressed by the NRC technical staff responding to an inquiry are solely the NRC technical staff's and do not necessarily represent the same for the NRC. Accordingly, the fact that the information was obtained through the NRC technical staff will not have a precedential effect in any legal or regulatory proceeding.
Final FAQ Resolution may be considered as part of the revision process for applicable EP guidance.
If you are reporting a safety or security concern, please see our Report a Safety or Security Concern page.
Submitted EPFAQ Status
The following table summarizes the current status of EPFAQs submitted to date. To submit comments, see the listed Docket ID in Regulations.gov and follow the guidance provided on our Documents for Comment page.
|EPFAQ No.||Submitted FAQ
ADAMS Accession Number
|EPFAQ No. 2012-007||ML12293A173||Accepted|
|EPFAQ No. 2013-001||ML13094A214||Accepted|
|EPFAQ No. 2013-002||ML13094A385||Accepted|
|EPFAQ No. 2013-003||ML13108A290||Accepted|
|EPFAQ No. 2013-004||ML13108A325||Accepted|
|EPFAQ No. 2013-005||ML13108A359||Accepted|
|EPFAQ No. 2013-006||ML13134A170||Accepted|
|EPFAQ No.||Question Submitted||Final Resolution|
|EPFAQ No. 2012-001||When I submit a scenario to the NRC by 10 CFR 50.4, how do I ensure that the scenario won't be entered into ADAMS as a public document until at least after the conduct of the exercise?||ML12171A466|
|EPFAQ No. 2012-002||Why has the NRC added inspection criteria to the offsite emergency declaration Classification/Notification process?||ML12333A281|
|EPFAQ No. 2012-003||Clarify the acceptable means for documenting discussions between licensees and OROs on the development of mutually acceptable PAR logic using Supplement 3 to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1.||ML12171A567|
|EPFAQ No. 2012-004||Question: How may an applicant comply with the A.9 requirement by December 31, 2013 when:
|EPFAQ No. 2012-005||What is the timeline for the implementation of protective action recommendations per the revised NUREG-0654, Supplement 3 following the ETE 180 day review period?||ML12348A786|
|EPFAQ No. 2012-006||Section 2.1.2 “Transient Population” of NUREG/CR-7002, Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, states “Large employers, defined as those with 50 or more employees working a single shift, should be listed and include the number of people per vehicle.” Section 1.1, item b in Appendix B to NUREG/CR-7002 “ETE Review Criteria Checklist” reads, “Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, large employers, and special events should be identified.”
Higher population-density sites (e.g., Catawba, McGuire, Indian Point, Turkey Point, St. Lucie, Diablo Canyon) may have hundreds of large employers. Phone calls to these employers have been less than fruitful in terms or producing employment data useful for an ETE analysis.
Submit Your Question
To submit a question by mail, mail the above information to:
Deputy Director Division of Preparedness and Response
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TWN 3-B25
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville MD 20852
How to submit attachments:
If you have attachments to provide, please send a separate email with attachments to: EPFAQ.Resource@nrc.gov