Frequently Asked Questions/Emergency Preparedness Guidance Clarification

On this page:

Nuclear Industry Expectations

While any member of the public may submit an EPFAQ for NRC consideration, the staff expects the nuclear industry to work with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to coordinate, discuss, and submit EPFAQs through NEI. This will ensure consistency and allows other nuclear industry representatives to assist in the development of the applicable EPFAQ.

Question Criteria

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.

EPFAQs Under Review

These EPFAQs are under review and yet to be finalized.

  • EPFAQ Title ADAMS Accession Number
    There are currently no EPFAQs under review.

EPFAQs Out for Public Comment

The following report provides a list of EPFAQs out for public comment.

  • EPFAQ Title ADAMS Accession Number
    There are currently no EPFAQs Out for Public Comment.

EPFAQs Completed

The following report provides a list of completed EPFAQs that have not been adopted into regulatory guidance.

  • EPFAQs Completed 2012-2015
  • EPFAQ Title ADAMS Accession Number
    2015-009 Acceptability of Noble Gas Only Source Term for the Threshold Calculation of Effluent Monitor Readings for AS1 and AG1 ML16166A431
    2015-010 Usage of NUREG/BR-0150 Volume 1, Rev. 4 "RTM-96 Response Figures A.5 - A.12 to Determine Core Damage ML16166A419
    2015-011 Usage of NEI 10-05 to support augmentation time changes EPFAQ was REJECTED as guidance is provided by NSIR/DPR ISG-001 and NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1 N/A
    2015-012 Usage of plant parameter information not available in the Control Room as an information and data source in an EAL ML16166A404
    2015-013 Hostile Action resulting in a loss of control of the facility declarations when fuel damage is likely within 4-hours or results in a loss of physical control of spent fuel ML16166A366
    2015-014 Consideration to allow for specifying relevant operating modes identified for the inability to control a key safety function cannot be maintained following a transfer of plant control to an alternate location ML16166A240
    2015-015 Consideration of listing site-specific power sources applicable for consideration for loss of power EALs ML16166A191
    2016-001 Definition of Hostile Action and/or Projectile EPFAQ was withdrawn by the industry via letter ML17083A795
    2016-002 Clarification of Equipment Damage as a Result of a Hazardous Event ML17195A299
    2017-001 Clarification of Implementation of the revised EPA Protective Action Guide regarding revisions to EAL ML17199F736
    2018-001 Reactor Coolant System Fission Product Barrier Loss Clarification ML18338A290
    2018-002 Clarification of Boiling Water Reactor Classification of a Reator Coolant System Leak Leak that may be Isolated Locally ML18338A308
    2018-003 Clarification of Site-Specific List of Plant Rooms or Areas that should be regarding Single Containment Fire Alarms ML18338A397
    2018-004 Hazardous Events Effects On Safety Systems Clarification ML18340A051
    2019-001 Clarification of Initiating Conditions CU1 (15 minutes) and CA1 (significance) ML19275E817
    2019-002 A question regarding the inclusion of a revision of 10CFR21 in purchase orders was REJECTED as purchase orders are outside the scope of EPFAQs. N/A
    2019-003 A question regarding a clarification of EPFAQ 2013-004 was REJECTED because NUREG-0654, Revision 1, Supplement 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML113010596).  Further clarification is provided in the NRC response to EPFAQ 2019-003. ML19354A835
    2019-004 Clarification Based On Implementation Of The Impact Of BWROG EPG/SAG Revision 4 On Various Emergency Action Levels. ML20238C050
    2020-001 Relief from Annual Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Update When Performing A Census Baseline ETE Study. ML20206L127
    2020-002 Clarification of emergency preparedness communication equipment relative to extended loss of all power communication equipment. ML20206K985
    2021-001 Clarification of Section 4.3 of NUREG-7002, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," regarding acceptable error and/or confidence interval ML22203A071
    2021-002 Clarification of NUREG-7002, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," regarding availability date for 2021 Census data ML22203A088

Submit Your Question

Would you like to remain anonymous?*

Before sending us contact information, you may wish to review our Privacy Policy.
Note: Submitting this information is voluntary. Your submission consents to its use as set forth in NRC's Privacy Policy.

A question may also be submitted by mail 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:

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, August 08, 2022