ML111650097

Fleet - Approval of Change from Emergency Action Level Scheme Based on NEI 99-01, Revision 4, to NEI 99-01, Revision 5

ML111650097
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden, Peach Bottom, Oyster Creek, Byron, Braidwood, Limerick, Clinton, Quad Cities, LaSalle, Crane
Issue date:	06/30/2011
From:	Leeds E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Pacilio M Exelon Nuclear, Exelon Generation Co
DiFrancesco N, NRR/DORL/LPL3-2, 415-1115
References
TAC ME3028, TAC ME3029, TAC ME3030, TAC ME3031, TAC ME3032, TAC ME3033, TAC ME3034, TAC ME3035, TAC ME3036, TAC ME3038, TAC ME3039, TAC ME3040, TAC ME3041, TAC ME3042, TAC ME3043, TAC ME3044, TAC ME3037
Download: ML111650097 (24)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 30, 2011 Mr. Michael J. Pacilio President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555

SUBJECT:

BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 BYRON STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO.1 DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1,2, AND 3 LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 1,2, AND 3 QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 APPROVAL OF CHANGE FROM EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL SCHEME BASED ON NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) 99-01, REVISION 4, TO NEI 99-01, REVISION 5 (TAC NOS. ME3028 THROUGH ME3044)

Dear Mr. Pacilio:

By letter dated December 22, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated August 10, August 27, September 10, 2010, and January 20, 2011, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC, the licensee), requested prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for proposed changes to the emergency action level (EAL) scheme for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Clinton Power Station, Unit No.1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The EGC request supports a conversion from their current EAL scheme to an EAL scheme based on the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," Revision 5, dated February 2008.

The NRC staff has completed its review. Based on the information provided by the licensee, the NRC staff finds that the EGC proposed EAL scheme revision is consistent with the guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 5, which is an acceptable alternative for development of an EAL scheme and meets the standards in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.47(b) and the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.B.

M. Pacilio

- 2 Therefore, the NRC staff approves the proposed change to the EAL scheme. A copy of the related safety evaluation is enclosed.

Sincerely,

~0 Eric J.

eds, Director Offic f Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.

STN 50-456, STN 50-457, and 72-73; STN 50-454, STN 50-455, and 72-68; 50-461;50-010,50-237, 50-249 and 72-37; 50-373, 50-374, and 72-70; 50-352,50-353, and 72-65; 50-219 and 72-15; 50-171,50-277,50-278, and 72-79; 50-254, 50-265, and 72-53; 50-289 and 50-320

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation cc: Listserv

"-,,,R REG(f{

~V'"

<Ii'

~

0'1)

J

.t.

('>

q 0

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

~

<J>

~

~

~

~

~

1-., ****'" ~oSAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO CHANGE OF EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL SCHEME USING NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 99-01, REVISION 5, METHODOLOGY BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; BYRON STATION, UNIT !\\lOS. 1 AND 2; CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO.1; DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3; LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION; PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3; QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC DOCKET NOS. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, AND 72-73; STN 50-454, STN 50-455, AND 72-68; 50-461;50-010, 50-237, 50-249 AND 72-37; 50-373, 50-374, AND 72-70; 50-352,50-353, AND 72-65; 50-219 AND 72-15; 50-171,50-277,50-278, AND 72-79; 50-254, 50-265, AND 72-53; 50-289 AND 50-320

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated December 22, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated August 10, August 27, September 10, 2010, and January 20, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML100050503, ML102230281, ML102440574, ML102630079 and ML110330470, respectively), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC, the licensee),

requested prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) approval for proposed changes to the emergency action level (EAL) scheme for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Clinton Power Station, Unit !\\lo. 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Exelon Fleet1).

1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 - is owned by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company as discussed in Section 4.0 of the NRC staff safety evaluation.

Enclosure

- 2 The EGC request supports a conversion from their current EAL scheme to a scheme based on the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," Revision 5, dated February 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080450149). The Exelon Fleet currently utilizes an EAL scheme that was developed based on NEI99-01, Revision 4, dated January 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041470143).

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

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

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.47, "Emergency plans," sets forth emergency plan requirements for nuclear power plant facilities. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1 )(i) state, 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.

The 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.47(b), establishes the standards that the onsite and offsite emergency response plans must meet for NRC staff to make a positive finding that the licensee can and will take adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency to provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety. The 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) requires that a licensee's emergency response plan contain:

A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial offsite response measures.

The 10 CFR Part 50,Section IV.B of Appendix E, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities," states, in part:

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:

- 3 (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.

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2003-18, with Supplements 1 and 2, "Use of NEI 99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels" (ADAMS Accession Nos.

ML032580518, ML041550395, and ML051450482, respectively), provides guidance for developing or changing a standard emergency classification and action level scheme. RIS 2003-18 and its supplements also provide recommendations to assist licensees, consistent with Section IV.S of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, in determining whether to seek prior NRC approval of deviations from the guidance.

The EAL development guidance was initially established via Generic Letter (GL) 79-50 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031320278), and, subsequently, NEI 99-01, Revision 5, was endorsed as an approach for the development of an EAL scheme via letter dated February 22, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080430535).

Since EAL development guidance documents are not site-specific, NRC staff review confirms that the site-specific EAL scheme is applicable to the reactor design. NRC staff review confirms that the guidance contained in EAL scheme documents bound the most typical accident/event scenarios for which emergency response is necessary and are in a format that allows for industry standardization and consistent regulatory oversight.

The proposed changes were submitted to the NRC for a technical and regulatory review prior to implementation by the licensee, as required under Section IV.S of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. A change in EAL scheme to NEI 99-01, Revision 5, requires NRC staff review and approval due to the potential safety significance of the change, but would not decrease the overall effectiveness of the emergency plan. The NRC staff review is based on a revision to the Exelon Fleet's EAL scheme provided in the EGC's submittal letter and supplemental information related to the NRC's requests for additional information. The enclosures to EGC's letter dated January 20, 2011, contain the final version of the proposed site-specific EAL scheme for the Exelon Fleet. This final version was reviewed by the NRC staff for acceptability.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

In EGC's submittal and supplemental letters, the licensee submitted the proposed EAL scheme for the Exelon Fleet, the technical basis, a comparison matrix, the EAL numbering scheme, and an explanation for any difference or deviation from NEI 99-01. The comparison matrix provided a cross-reference relating the proposed EAL scheme to the EAL scheme in NEI 99-01, Revision 5.

- 4 The Exelon Fleet currently utilizes an EAL scheme based on the generic EAL scheme development guidance from NEI 99-01, Revision 4, with site-specific modifications due to design issues and/or licensee preference. The licensee is converting to an EAL scheme using the development guidance from NEI 99-01, Revision 5, with site-specific modifications due to design issues and/or licensee preference.

The proposed site-specific EAL scheme is unique to each Exelon Fleet site; however, to ensure consistency and regulatory stability, the NRC staff reviewed the proposed site-specific EAL scheme to ensure the following key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme are in place:

Consistency (i.e., the EALs would lead to similar decisions under similar circumstances at different plants), up to and including standardization in intent, if not in actual wording; 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; and Objective and observable values.

To aid in understanding the nomenclature used in this safety evaluation (SE), for each category of EALs reviewed the following naming/numbering convention is used: the first letter signifies the category; the second letter signifies the classification level (G = General Emergency (GE),

S= Site Area Emergency (SAE), A = Alert, U = Notification of Unusual Event (UE>>; and the number is the applicable number from the site-specific EAL scheme. For ease of use, this SE will use the numbering system from the site-specific EAL scheme rather than from the generic EAL development guidance.

3.1 CATEGORY 'R' - ABNORMAL RADIOLOGICAL RELEASE/RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT 3.1.1 EAL Set RG1/RS1/RA1/RU1 This EAL set is based upon site-specific indications of a release of radioactivity (gaseous and/or liquid). The progression from UE to GE is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic

- 5 EAL scheme development guidance, as well as using 'R' in lieu of 'A' to reference this category.

In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.1.2 EAL Set RA2/RU2 This EAL set is based upon site-specific indications of fuel uncovery. The progression from UE to Alert is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The SAE and GE classification levels for this specific accident progression are bounded by indications available in the fission barrier matrix as well as EALs RS1 and RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as using 'R' in lieu of 'A' to reference this category.

In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.1.3 EAL RA3/RU3 This EAL set is based upon indications of fuel clad degradation (RU3) and a rise in plant radiation levels (RA3) that impedes normal access to the main control room (MCR) and central alarm station (CAS).

The licensee chose to modify the EAL scheme from the approved generic EAL development guidance by moving the EAL related to fuel cladding degradation from the System Malfunction

-6 category to the Abnormal Radiological Release/Radiological Effluent category as the site specific EALs are based upon radiological indications, specifically EAL RU3 was developed from the generic EAL scheme development guidance EAL SU4.

The Alert EAL RA3 is primarily intended to ensure the site emergency response organization is activated to support the MCR in removing the impediment to normal access to the MCR and CAS. Indications of fuel cladding damage and/or increasing radiation levels in the plant are bounded by indication of fission barrier loss or potential loss, as well as, RS1 and RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as using 'R' in lieu of 'A' to reference this category.

In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.2 CATEGORY 'C' - COLD SHUTDOWN/REFUELING SYSTEM MALFUNCTION 3.2.1 EAL Set CAlICU1 This EAL set is based upon a loss of available alternating current (AC) power sources to the emergency busses. The progression from UE to Alert is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The SAE and GE classification levels for this specific accident progression are bounded by indications available in EALs RS1 and RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation, values, and listing of applicable power sources derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

- 7 3.2.2 EAL Set CG6/CS6/CA6/CU6 This EAL set is based upon a loss of reactor pressure vessel inventory. The progression from UE to GE is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.2.3 EAL Set CA5/CU5 This EAL set is based upon an inability to maintain control of decay heat removal. The progression from UE to Alert is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The SAE and GE classification levels for this specific accident progression are bounded by indications available in EALs RS1 and RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

-8 3.2.4 EAL CU4 This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the EAL's intent is to highlight the importance of emergency communications by ensuring an EAL is declared if normal communication methods for onsite and offsite personnel, or for offsite response organizations including the NRC, are lost.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The communication methods derived for this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b}(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.2.5 EAL CU2 This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the EAL's intent is to highlight the Significance of inadvertent criticality events by ensuring an EAL is declared if unplanned positive and either sustained period for boiler water reactors or sustained startup rate for pressurized water reactors is observed on nuclear instrumentation.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b}(4} to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.2.6 EAL CU3 This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the EAL's intent is to ensure an EAL is declared when a loss of direct current power event occurs as it compromises the ability of the licensee to monitor and control the removal of decay heat during Cold Shutdown or Refueling modes of operation.

- 9 The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.2.7 EAL CU7 This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the EAL's intent is to ensure an EAL is declared when an unplanned loss of reactor pressure vessel inventory occurs.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.3 CATEGORY 'E' -INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION (ISFSI) 3.3.1 EAL E-HU1 This EAL is not required for Clinton Power Station or Three Mile Island Nuclear Station due to their not having an ISFSI.

This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the EAL's intent is limited to radiological events at the ISFSI. While security-related events at the ISFSI are also of concern, they are bounded by the licensee's EAL HA 1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E

-10 and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.4 CATEGORY 'H' - HAZARDS 3.4.1 EAL Set HA4/HU4 This EAL set is based upon the effect natural and destructive hazards may have on the licensee. The progression from UE to Alert is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The SAE and GE classification levels for this specific accident progression are bounded by indications available in the fission barrier matrix and EALs RS1 and RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The method of determining seismic events is consistent with the development strategies stated in the generic EAL development guidance but it is different than the wording in the guidance.

Seismic event classification criteria, for both the LIE and Alert classification levels, are appropriate, considered part of a standard EAL scheme, and meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, are acceptable for implementation.

High wind and tornado events, as well as the development of site-specific areas considered in these EALs, are consistent with the development strategies stated in the generic EAL development guidance, even though the actual wording used is different. However, these EALs are considered part of a standard EAL scheme and meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, these EALs are acceptable for implementation.

Rotating equipment failures from the main turbine are appropriately developed using the generic EAL development guidance with site-specific terminology and site-specific areas of consideration determined for these EALs. While consistent with the development strategies stated in the generic EAL development guidance, the actual wording used is different.

However, these EALs are considered part of a standard EAL scheme and meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part

50. Therefore, these EALs are acceptable for implementation Internal flooding events are appropriately developed using the generic EAL development guidance with site-specific terminology and site-specific areas of consideration determined for

- 11 these EALs. While consistent with the development strategies stated in the generic EAL development guidance, the actual wording used is different. However, these EALs are considered part of a standard EAL scheme and meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, these EALs are acceptable for implementation.

Events based upon vehicle crashes within the protected area or vital area has typically been difficult to differentiate between the UE and Alert classification levels. GL 79-50, NUREG 0654/FEMA-REP-1, and NUMARC/NESP-007 used language equating vehicles to aircraft, trains and barges. NEI 99-01, Revision 4, used language equating vehicles to that large enough to cause damage. With the issuance of NRC Bulletin 2005-02, "Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events" (ADAMS Accession No. ML051740058), the need for EALs related to airborne, waterborne, or land-based security events, have been resolved with the development of security-specific EALs. In addition, the intended basis for a UE EAL is, among other considerations, the resultant degradation in the level of safety of the plant. Eliminating the UE EAL due to vehicle crashes is consistent with the intent of the UE classification and removes any misunderstanding with the remaining Alert classification. The Alert classification is based upon indications of degraded performance or visible damage to a specific list of areas considered applicable to this EAL. Removing the UE EAL based upon vehicle crashes, and revising the wording of the remaining Alert EAL, continues to be considered part of a standard EAL scheme and meets the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, these EALs are acceptable for implementation.

The licensee developed additional EALs for Clinton Power Station, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station related to abnormal river water level (high and low) for the UE and Alert classification levels. The instrumentation and set points developed for these EALs are appropriate and applicable for this licensee. The generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, has the licensee consider unique hazard events applicable to their specific site and to develop site-specific EALs to address these hazards.

These EALs are considered part of a standard EAL scheme and meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section CFR 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50.

Therefore, these EALs are acceptable for implementation.

The licensee developed additional EALs for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station related to abnormal intake structure level (high and low) for the UE and Alert classification levels. The instrumentation and set points developed for these EALs are appropriate and applicable for this licensee. The generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1, has the licensee consider unique hazard events applicable to their specific site and to develop site-specific EALs to address these hazards. These EALs are considered part of a standard EAL scheme and meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, these EALs are acceptable for implementation.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

- 12 3.4.2 EAL Set HA3/HU3 This EAL set is based upon the effect fire and explosions may have on the licensee. The progression from UE to Alert is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The SAE and GE classification levels for this specific accident progression are bounded by indications available in the fission barrier matrix, EALs RS1 and RG1, or applicable EALs from the systems malfunction category.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The development of site-specific areas considered in these EALs is consistent with the development strategies stated in the generic EAL development guidance even though the actual wording used are different, it is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generiC EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.4.3 EAL Set HA5/HU5 This EAL set is based upon the effect toxic, corrosive, asphyxiant or flammable gases may have on the licensee. The progression from UE to Alert is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The SAE and GE classification levels for this specific accident progression are bounded by indications available in the fission barrier matrix, EALs RS 1 and RG1, or applicable EALs from the Systems Malfunction category.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The development of site-specific areas considered in these EALs, is consistent with the development strategies stated in the generic EAL development guidance even though the actual wording used is different, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

- 13 3.4.4 EAL Set HG1/HS1/HA1/HU1 The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, is consistent with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

This EAL set is based upon security-related events originally developed in accordance with the guidance from NRC Bulletin 2005-02 or RIS 2006-12, "Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance 'Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action'" (ADAMS Accession No. ML072670421), for licensees to implement regardless of the specific version of the generic EAL scheme development guidance used, or if the particular licensee developed their EAL scheme using an alternative approach. Based upon lessons-learned from implementation and use of this EAL set, particularly, when licensees performed combined security and emergency preparedness drills, the NRC staff and the industry worked to enhance the language.of these EALs so as to eliminate any confusion without changing the intent of the EAL set as set forth in NRC Bulletin 2005-02 and RIS 2006-12. The NRC staff generated EAL Frequently Asked Question (EALFAQ) 2009-48 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100710728) to address the changes made to the generic EAL scheme development guidance document.

The development of this EAL set is consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Bulletin 2005-02 and RIS 2006-12, as further enhanced by the lessons-learned from implementation and drills, and revised in NEI 99-01, Revision 5, and evaluated in EALFAQ 2009-48.

The licensee specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.4.5 EAL Set HS2/HA2 This EAL set is based upon MCR evacuation. The progression from Alert to SAE is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The GE classification level for this specific accident progression is bounded by indications available in the fission barrier matrix or EAL RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, is consistent with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E

- 14 3.4.6 EAL Set HG6/HS6/HA6/HU6 This EAL set is based upon providing the EAL decision-maker EALs to consider when their judgment deems an emergency classification is warranted.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, is consistent with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.5 CATEGORY 'M' - SYSTEM MALFUNCTION 3.5.1 EAL Set MG1/MS1/MA1/MU1 This EAL set is based upon a loss of available AC power sources to the emergency busses.

The progression from UE to GE is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as, using 'M' in lieu of'S' to reference this category. In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation, values, and listing of applicable power sources derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

- 1S 3.S.2 EAL Set MG2/MS2/MA2/MU2 This EAL set is based upon the effect a failure of the reactor protection system may have on the plant, as well as, inadvertent criticality for MU2. The progression from Alert to GE is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance, and the inclusion of the UE (MU2) is acceptable as it relates to the EAL set.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as using 'M' in lieu of 'S' to reference this category.

In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section S0.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part SO, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.S.3 EAL MU7 This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the intent is to ensure an EAL is declared when the plant is not brought into the required operating mode within the time allowed in accordance with their Technical Specifications Limiting Condition of Operation action statement completion time.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as, using 'M' in lieu of'S' to reference this category. In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering and format of this EAL is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section S0.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part SO, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.S.4 EAL Set MS4/MA4/MU4 This EAL set is based upon the effect a loss of indication, control, and annunciation capabilities has on the plant. The progression from UE to SAE is appropriate and consistent with EAL

- 16 scheme development guidance. The GE classification level for this specific accident progression is bounded by indications available in the fission barrier matrix or EAL RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as, using 'M' in lieu of'S' to reference this category. In addition, the licensee chose to use mathematical symbols instead of their noun equivalent where applicable. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL set is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section S0.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part SO, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.S.S EAL MU6 This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the EAL's intent is to highlight the importance of emergency communications by ensuring an EAL is declared if normal communication methods for onsite and offsite personnel, or for offsite response organizations including the NRC, are lost. No escalation path is necessary for this event progression.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as, using 'M' in lieu of'S' to reference this category. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, is consistent with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The communication methods derived for this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section S0.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part SO, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.S.6 EAL MUS This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the intent is to ensure an EAL is declared when the plant has indications of reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage. By

-17 design, this EAL is redundant with corresponding indicators from a loss or potential loss of fission barriers, as well as, radiation monitoring, to ensure reactor and/or fission barrier events are recognized regardless of the particular EAL table a licensee may be referring to. EAL escalation is bounded by fission barrier indicators and EALs RA 1, RS1, and RG1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as, using 'M' in lieu of'S' to reference this category. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, is consistent with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than that provided in the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.5.7 EAL MS3 This EAL does not require an EAL set within the overall EAL scheme as the EAL's intent is to ensure an EAL is declared when a loss of direct power event occurs as it compromises the ability of the licensee to monitor and control the removal of decay heat. The GE classification level for this event is bounded by fission barrier matrix indicators and EAL RG 1.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and EAL sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance, as well as, using 'M' in lieu of'S' to reference this category.

The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, is consistent with the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

3.6 CATEGORY 'F' - FISSION BARRIER MATRIX This category is unique in the overall EAL scheme as the thresholds are not intended to be stand alone indicators of a particular event occurring at the site. Rather, they are to be used as triggers within the particular logic configuration needed to reflect a loss or potential loss of a fission barrier. Each licensee has three fission barriers: fuel cladding, the RCS, and the primary containment. Licensees are to develop thresholds that provide EAL decision-makers input into making an event declaration based upon degradation of one or more of these fission barrier barriers.

- 18 While there are only four EALs within this set (FG1/FS1/FA1/FU1), there are numerous triggers used as logic inputs to decide on the appropriate classification based upon the number of loss and/or potential loss indicators that are triggered for each barrier. By design, these indicators are redundant with other similar indicators in the Category 'A' and Category'S' EAL sets due to importance of licensees being able to recognize reactor and/or fission barrier events as timely as possible using the best available indicators from several different perspectives.

The NRC staff verified that the logic used to determine the appropriate emergency classification is consistent with the generic EAL scheme development guidance.

The instrumentation and set points derived for this EAL category are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, addresses the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee chose to modify this EAL category by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format and sequence other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The numbering, sequencing, and format of this EAL is consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, is consistent with the site specific implementation strategies provided, and is considered part of a standard EAL scheme.

The licensee's specific implementation method for this EAL set is in alignment with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme, and while different than the generic EAL development guidance, it continues to meet the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E and standards in Section 50.47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50, and therefore, is acceptable for implementation.

4.0 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station aM!), Unit 2 In 1988, the General Public Utilities (GPU) Nuclear Corporation (the licensee at the time) requested an amendment to the TMI Unit 2 Facility Operating License No. DPR-73 that would permit the licensee to place the TMI-2 facility in a monitored storage condition. Specifically, one of the changes requested to the DPR-73 Technical Specifications was to remove the administrative controls related to emergency plan, organization, procedures and equipment.

The NRC staff stated in an SE dated February 1992 (ADAMS Legacy Accession No.

9203040090), that the Revision 3 to the GPU Nuclear Corporation Emergency Plan, dated April 10, 1990 (ADAMS Legacy Accession No. 9004200408), combined the EALs of both TMI-1 and TMI-2 once TMI-2 entered mode 2. Mode 2 was defined as the facility condition in which (1) the reactor vessel and the RCS were defueled to the extent reasonable achievable, (2) the possibility of a criticality in the reactor building was precluded, and (3) all canisters containing core material were removed from the reactor building. The NRC staff further stated that since the emergency response actions for the site have been delegated to TMI-1 and considering the post-accident, inoperable and essentially defueled condition of the facility, the NRC staff found the change acceptable.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The NRC staff has reviewed the technical basis for the proposed EAL scheme, the modifications from NEI 99-01, and the licensee's evaluation of the proposed changes. The licensee chose to modify their EAL scheme from the generic EAL scheme development guidance provided in NEI 99-01 in order to adopt a format more in alignment with how they

- 19 currently implement their EALs, as well as, alignment with licensee specific writer's guides and preferences. The NRC staff determined that these modifications do not alter the intent of any specific EAL within an EAL set, EAL category, or within the entire EAL scheme as stated in NEI99-01.

The NRC staff determined that the proposed EAL scheme uses objective and observable values, is worded in a manner that addresses human engineering and user friendliness concerns, follows logical progression for escalating events, and allows for event downgrading and upgrading based upon the potential risk to the public health and safety. Risk assessments were appropriately used to set the boundaries of the emergency classification levels and ensure that all EALs that trigger emergency classification are in the same range of relative risk. In addition, the NRC staff found that the proposed EAL scheme was consistent with EAL schemes implemented at similarly designed plants.

Based on the above, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed changes meet the guidance in NEI99-01, the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4), and the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed EAL scheme, as stated in enclosures of the EGC's letter dated January 20, 2011, provides reasonable assurance that the licensee can and will take adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency.

6.0 REFERENCES

1.

Letter from Pamela B. Cowan, Exelon Generation Company, LLC to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Implementation of Emergency Action Level Schemes Developed from NEI 99-01, Revision 5, Methodology for the Development of Emergency Action Levels, dated December 22,2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100050503 [non public]).

2.

Letter from Pamela B. Cowan, Exelon Generation Company, LLC to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Supplemental Response for Proposed Implementation of Emergency Action Level Schemes Developed from NEI 99-01, Revision 5, "Methodology for the Development of Emergency Action Levels" - Clarifying Information Related to Emergency Action Level HU3, dated August 10, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102230281 [non-public]).

3.

Letter from David P. Helker, Exelon Generation Company, LLC to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Draft Request for Additional Information - Exelon EAL Upgrade Project for Braidwood Station, Byron Station and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, dated August 27,2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102440574 [non-public)).

4.

Letter from Pamela B. Cowan, Exelon Generation Company, LLC to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Draft Request for Additional Information - Exelon EAL Upgrade Project for the Dresden and Quad Cities Stations, dated Sept 10, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102630079 [non public]).

5.

Letter from David P. Helker, Exelon Generation Company, LLC to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Response to Request for Additional Information and

- 20 Supplemental Information for Implementation of Emergency Action Level Schemes Developed from NEI 99-01, Revision 5, "Methodology for the Development of Emergency Action Levels," dated January 20, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110330462 [cover letter - non-public] and ML110330470 [package - non public]).

6.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 5, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," February 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080450149).

7.

NEI 99-01 Revision 4, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,"

dated January 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041470143).

8.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0654!FEMA-REP-1, November 1980 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040420012).

9.

Nuclear Management and Resources Council! National Environmental Studies Project (NUMARC/NESP) - 007, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,"

Revision 2, dated January 1992 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041120174).

10.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-18, with Supplements 1 and 2, "Use of NEI-99-01, 'Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,' dated January 2003," dated October 8,2003 (ADAMS Accession Nos.

ML032580518, ML041550395, and ML051450482).

11.

NRC Generic Letter 79-50 dated October 10, 1979 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031320278).

12.

Miller, C. G., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter to Alan Nelson, Nuclear Energy Institute, "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review and Endorsement of NEI-99-01, Revision 5, dated February 2008," dated February 22, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080430535).

13.

NRC Bulletin 2005-02, "Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security Based Events," dated July 18, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051740058).

14.

NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-12, "Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance 'Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action',"

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072670421).

15.

Emergency Action Level Frequently Asked Question 2009-48 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100710728 [non-public]).

16.

Safety evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation related to the post-defuel storage facility operating license No. DPR-73, dated February 1992 (ADAMS Legacy Accession No. 9203040090).

- 21

17.

GPU Nuclear Corporation Emergency Plan, dated April, 10, 1990 (ADAMS Legacy Accession No. 9004200408).

Principal Contributor: D. A. Johnson, NSIR/DPR Date of issuance: June 30, 2011

M. Pacilio

- 2 Therefore, the NRC staff approves the proposed change to the EAL scheme. A copy of the related safety evaluation is enclosed.

Sincerely, IraJ Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.

STN 50-456, STN 50-457, and 72-73; STN 50-454, STN 50-455, and 72-68; 50-461;50-010, 50-237, 50-249 and 72-37; 50-373, 50-374, and 72-70; 50-352,50-353, and 72-65; 50-219 and 72-15; 50-171, 50-277, 50-278, and 72-79; 50-254, 50-265, and 72-53; 50-289 and 50-320

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation cc: Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource RidsNrrLASRohrer RidsOGCMailCenter Resource RidsNrrDirsltsb Resource DJohnson RidsNrrPMBraidwood RidsNsirDprOrlob MNorris RidsNrrPMClinton Resource RidsNrrPMDresden Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 Resource RidsNrrDorl Resource JAnderson SBarr Exelon PMs RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource JGoshen RidsNrrPMPHughey Resource RidsNrrPMPBamford Resource PLongmire RidsNrrLABaxter Resource

.IBuckley RidRgn1 MailCenter Resource RidsNrrLPl3-2 Resource SGiebel JHickman RJickling RidsNrrPMEMilier Resource ADAMS Accession No. ML111650097 *Via Memos dated 5/26/11 and 6/1111.

OFFICE DORULPL3-2 DORULPL3-2/PM DORULPL3-2/LA NSIR/DPR*

NAME ECarrico NDiFrancesco SRohrer JAnderson DATE 06/24/11 06/24/11 06/23/11 06/01/11 OFFICE DORULPL3-2/BC NRR/DORUD NRR/D NAME JZimmerman JGiitter ELeeds DATE 06/27/11 06/28/11 06/30/11 OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD