ML092890462

Safety Evaluation on Proposed Emergency Action Level Change

ML092890462
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	10/26/2009
From:	Thadani M Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Heflin A Union Electric Co
DiFrancesco Nick, NRR/DORL/LP4, 415-1115
References
TAC ME0667
Download: ML092890462 (8)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 26, 2009 Mr. Adam C. Heflin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Union Electric Company P.O. Box 620 Fulton, MO 65251

SUBJECT:

CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 - SAFETY EVALUATION ON PROPOSED EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL CHANGE (TAC NO. ME0667)

Dear Mr. Heflin:

By letter dated January 15, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML090350501), Union Electric Company (the licensee), requested prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for a proposed change to emergency action level (EAL) SU6.1 for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 (Callaway). The requested change to the licensee's EAL is to align the EAL with the latest endorsed EAL guidance, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 5, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels" (ADAMS Accession No. ML080450149), and site Technical Specifications.

The NRC staff performed a review of the proposed change to Callaway's EAL in accordance with the regulations in paragraph 50.54(q) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The NRC staff concludes that the proposed change would not result in a decrease in effectiveness and, as changed, continues to meet the requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities." No NRC approval is necessary. The NRC safety evaluation is enclosed.

The NRC staff expects that the licensee will implement the EAL as provided in Attachment 2 of the licensee's letter dated January 15, 2009, which includes the implementation of the Emergency Action Level Technical Basis Document change. If the licensee changes the EAL via 10 CFR 50.54(q) prior to implementation, the licensee shall ensure that the changes are provided to the NRC during the next emergency preparedness baseline inspection.

A. Heflin -2 If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1476 or by electronic mail at mohan.thadani@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, Z~

0/

f{~~

/":. /, 'l

~// 0'

• Mohan C. Thadani, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-483

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PROPOSED REVISION TO EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL SU6.1 CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-483

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated January 15, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML090350501), Union Electric Company (the licensee), requested prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for a proposed change to emergency action level (EAL) SU6.1 for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 (Callaway).

The proposed change would align the licensee's EAL with the latest endorsed EAL guidance, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 5, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels" (ADAMS Accession No. ML080450149), and site Technical Specifications.

Specifically, the requested change to the EAL is to incorporate language in the EAL Technical Bases to ensure that relief valve normal operation is excluded from the EAL.

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

The NRC staff reviewed the proposed revision against the following regulations and guidance described below.

2.1 Regulations The regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.47, "Emergency plans," set forth emergency plan requirements for nuclear power plant facilities.

Paragraph 50.47(a)(1)(i) states, in part, that

... no initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

Paragraph 50.47(b) establishes the standards that the onsite and offsite emergency response plans must meet for the NRC staff to make a positive finding that there is reasonable assurance Enclosure

-2 that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. One of these standards (10 CFR 50.47(b)(4)) stipulates that emergency plans include a standard emergency classification and action level scheme.

The regulations in 10 CFR 50.54(q) state, in part, that:

... A holder of a nuclear power reactor operating license ... shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the requirements in appendix E to this part... . The nuclear power reactor licensee may make changes to these plans without Commission approval only if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of § 50.47(b) and the requirements of appendix E to this part....

Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of the approved emergency plans may not be implemented without application to and approval by the Commission.

Section IV.S, "Assessment Actions," of Appendix E, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities," to 10 CFR Part 50, states, in part, that:

The means to be used for determining the magnitude of, and for continually assessing the impact of, the release of radioactive materials shall be described, including emergency action levels that are to be used as criteria for determining the need for notification and participation of local and State agencies, the Commission, and other Federal agencies, and the emergency action levels that are to be used for determining when and what type of protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety. The emergency action levels shall be based on in-plant conditions and instrumentation in addition to onsite and offsite monitoring. These initial emergency action levels shall be discussed and agreed on by the applicant or licensee and state and local governmental authorities, and approved by the NRC.

Thereafter, emergency action levels shall be reviewed with the State and local governmental authorities on an annual basis. A revision to an emergency action level must be approved by the NRC before implementation if:

(1) The licensee is changing from one emergency action level scheme to another emergency action level scheme (e.g., a change from an emergency action level scheme based on NUREG-0654 to a scheme based upon NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01);

(2) The licensee is proposing an alternate method for complying with the regulations; or (3) The emergency action level revision decreases the effectiveness of the emergency plan.

-3 2.2 Guidance Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.101, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors," Revision 2, dated October 1981 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090440294), states, in part, that:

The criteria and recommendations contained in Revision 1 of NUREG 0654/FEMA-REP-1 are considered by the NRC staff to be generally acceptable methods for complying with the standards in § 50.47 of 10 CFR Part 50 that must be met in onsite and offsite emergency response plans.

Revisions 3 and 4 of RG 1.101 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML003740302 and ML032020276, respectively) endorsed Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC)/National Environmental Studies Project (NESP)-007, Revision 2, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," dated January 1992 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041120174), and NEI 99-01, Revision 4, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," dated January 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML030230250), respectively, as acceptable alternatives to the guidance provided in NUREG-0654 for development of EALs to comply with 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

In a letter to NEI dated February 22,2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080430535), the NRC staff concluded that the guidance contained in NEI 99-01, Revision 5, is an acceptable method to develop an EAL scheme that meets the requirements of in Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4). Henceforth NEI 99-01, Revision 5, will be referred to as NEI 99-01.

NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," dated November 1980 (NUREG-0654) (ADAMS Accession No. ML040420012), includes the following criteria:

• Section II.D.1 - An emergency classification and emergency action level scheme as set forth in Appendix 1 must be established by the licensee.

• Section II.D.2 - The initiating conditions shall include the example conditions found in Appendix 1 [of NUREG-0654].

Guidance is also provided in Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2005-02, "Clarifying the Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes," dated February 14, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042580404). This RIS provides guidance to licensees when evaluating proposed changes to their emergency preparedness programs.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The proposed change was submitted to the NRC for a technical and regulatory review prior to implementation by the licensee, as required under 10 CFR 50.54(q). This evaluation is based on a revision to EAL SU6.1 provided in the licensee's application letter dated January 15, 2009.

In the letter, the licensee submitted the proposed EAL, its technical basis, and justification for

-4 the change. The NRC staff has reviewed the technical basis for the proposed EAL and the licensee's evaluation of the proposed change.

The requested change to the licensee's EAL is to align the EAL with the latest endorsed EAL guidance, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels" (Revision 5, February 2008). Specifically, the requested change to the EAL is to incorporate language in the EAL Technical Bases to ensure that relief valve normal operation is excluded from the EAL.

The NRC staff reviewed the proposed EAL against the guidance in NEI 99-01 to determine if the EAL for Callaway, as provided in its application, meet the guidelines in that document. The following NEI 99-01 guidelines were considered in the staff review:

• Consistency (Le., the EAL would lead to similar decisions under similar circumstances at different plants)

• Human engineering and user friendliness

• Potential for classification upgrade only when there is an increasing threat to public health and safety

• Ease of upgrading and downgrading

• Thoroughness in addressing and disposing of the issues of completeness and accuracy raised regarding Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654

• Technical completeness for each classification level

• Logical progression in classification for multiple events

• Objective, observable values The NRC staff reviewed the proposed EAL and has determined it is consistent with EALs implemented at similar designed plants, uses objective and observable values, and is consistent with the intent of NEI 99-01.

The NRC staff reviewed the proposed EAL to determine if it is worded in a manner that addresses human engineering and user friendliness concerns. The proposed EAL uses procedure language, including specific tag numbers for instrument readings and alarms, and uses flow charts, critical safety function status trees, check lists, and combinations of the above.

Based on this review, the staff has determined that the proposed EAL meets the guidelines in NEI 99-01 in this area.

The NRC staff reviewed the EAL sets 1 for technical completeness and has determined that classification upgrades are based upon an increasing threat to public health and safety, can 1 EAL sets are groups of EALs within a category related to a common concern. For example, unusual event, alert, site area emergency, and general emergency EALs related to a failure of the plant to shut down via an automatic scram would be considered an EAL set.

-5 effectively support upgrading and downgrading, and follow a logical progression for multiple events. Based on this review, the NRC staff concludes that the EALs are in accordance with the intent of NEI 99-01 in these areas.

The NRC staff also reviewed the proposed EAL for technical completeness and accuracy for each classification level. The proposed EAL is based on risk assessment to set the boundaries of the emergency classification levels and assure that all EALs that trigger that emergency classification are in the same range of relative risk. Precursor conditions of more serious emergencies also represent a potential risk to the public and are appropriately classified. The staff has determined that the proposed EAL is consistent with NEI 99-01, which has been determined to be an acceptable alternative to EALs based on NUREG-0654, Appendix 1.

Based on its review of the proposed EAL, the NRC staff concludes that the EAL meets the guidelines in NEI 99-01 for all of the areas listed above in this section. Therefore, the staff further concludes that the proposed EAL meets NEI 99-01, which is an acceptable alternative to the regulatory requirements listed in Section 2.0 of this safety evaluation.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The NRC staff performed a technical and regulatory review of the proposed change to the Callaway EAL SU6.1. The staff has determined that the proposed change meets the guidelines in NEI 99-01, which is an acceptable method for the development of an EAL scheme that meets the regulatory requirements. Based on this determination, the staff concludes that the proposed EAL change does not result in a decrease in effectiveness, meets the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and that it also provides reasonable assurance that the licensee will take adequate protective measures in a radiological emergency. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed EAL change is acceptable.

Principal Contributor: D. Johnson Date: October 26, 2009

ML092890462 *SE memo dated OFFICE NRRlLPL4/PM NRR/LPL4/LA NSIRIDPRIDDEP/ONRB/BC NRRlLPL4/BC NRR/LPL4/PM MThadani KWilliams' MThadani NAME NDiFrancesco for JBurkhardt MMarkley NDiFrancesco for DATE 10/23/09 10/23/09 9/11/09 10/26/09 10/26/09