ML19058A632
| ML19058A632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, Harris, Brunswick, Robinson, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/2019 |
| From: | Dennis Galvin Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Donahue J, Snider S Duke Energy Corp |
| Galvin D NRR/DORL/LPL2-2 415-6256 | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2018-LLA-0174 | |
| Download: ML19058A632 (38) | |
Text
July 1, 2019 Mr. Steve Snider Vice President Nuclear Engineering Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street, EC-07H Charlotte, NC 28202
SUBJECT:
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2; OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3; BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2; SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1; AND H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO REVISE EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL SCHEMES TO INCORPORATE CLARIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 2015-013, 2015-014, AND 2016-002 (EPID L-2018-LLA-0174)
Dear Mr. Snider:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued the following enclosed amendments: Amendment Nos. 303 and 299 to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba),
respectively; Amendment Nos. 315 and 294 to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire), respectively; Amendment Nos. 412, 414, and 413 to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee), respectively; Amendment Nos. 291 and 319 to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick), respectively; Amendment No. 172 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris); and Amendment No. 264 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson).
The amendments revise the respective emergency action levels (EAL) schemes for Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson, to incorporate clarifications provided by Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Questions (EPFAQs) 2015-013 (EAL HG1.1) and 2016-002 (EALs CA6.1 and SA9.1 (SA8.1 for Brunswick)). The amendments also revise the EAL schemes for Harris, and Robinson to incorporate clarifications provided by EPFAQ 2015-014 (EAL HS6.1).
A copy of the NRC staffs Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. The Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commissions biweekly Federal Register notice.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-6256 or by e-mail at Dennis.Galvin@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Dennis J. Galvin, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414, 50-369, 50-370, 50-269, 50-270, 50-287, 50-325, 50-324, 50-400, and 50-261
Enclosures:
- 1.
Amendment No. 303 to NPF-35
- 2.
Amendment No. 299 to NPF-52
- 3.
Amendment No. 315 to NPF-9
- 4.
Amendment No. 294 to NPF-17
- 5.
Amendment No. 412 to DPR-38
- 6.
Amendment No. 414 to DPR-47
- 7.
Amendment No. 413 to DPR-55
- 8.
Amendment No. 291 to DPR-71
- 9.
Amendment No. 319 to DPR-62
- 10. Amendment No. 172 to NPF-63
- 11. Amendment No. 264 to DPR-23
- 12. Safety Evaluation cc: See next page
cc: Mr. Robert T. Simril Site Vice President Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4800 Concord Road York, SC 29745 Mr. Thomas Ray Site Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078-8985 Mr. Ed Burchfield, Jr.
Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672-0752 Mr. Ernest J. Kapopoulos, Jr.
Site Vice President H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Progress, LLC 3581 West Entrance Road, RNPA01 Hartsville, SC 29550 Ms. Tanya Hamilton Site Vice President Duke Energy Progress, LLC Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 5413 Shearon Harris Road, M/C HNP01 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 Mr. William R. Gideon Site Vice President Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Progress, LLC 8470 River Rd., SE (M/C BNP001)
Southport, NC 28461 Additional Distribution by Listserv
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-413 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 303 Renewed License No. NPF-35
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility) Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 filed by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, acting for itself, and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (licensees), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 303, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-414 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 299 Renewed License No. NPF-52
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility) Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52 filed by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, acting for itself, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1 and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (licensees), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 299, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-369 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 315 Renewed License No. NPF-9
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment to the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility), Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-9, filed by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 315, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-9 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-370 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 294 Renewed License No. NPF-17
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment to the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility), Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-17, filed by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 294, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-17 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-269 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 412 Renewed License No. DPR-38
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility), Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-38, filed by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 412, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-38 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-270 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 414 Renewed License No. DPR-47
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility), Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-47, filed by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 414, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-47 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-287 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 3 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 413 Renewed License No. DPR-55
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 (the facility), Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55, filed by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 413, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-55 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-325 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 291 Renewed License No. DPR-71
- 1.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment filed by Duke Energy Progress, LLC (the licensee), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 291, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-71 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-324 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 2 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 319 Renewed License No. DPR-62
- 1.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment filed by Duke Energy Progress, LLC (the licensee), dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 319, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
0 DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-400 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 172 Renewed License No. NPF-63
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Duke Energy Progress, LLC (the licensee),
dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 172, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
1 DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-261 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 264 Renewed License No. DPR-23
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Duke Energy Progress, LLC (the licensee),
dated June 20, 2018, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2.
Accordingly, by Amendment No. 264, Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 is hereby amended to authorize revision to the Emergency Plan as set forth in the licensee's application dated June 20, 2018, and evaluated in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA Michele G. Evans for/
Ho K. Nieh, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: July 1, 2019
2 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 303 AND 299 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-35 AND NPF-52 AMENDMENT NOS. 315 AND 294 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-9 AND NPF-17 AMENDMENT NOS. 412, 414, AND 413 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-38, DPR-47, AND DPR-55 AMENDMENTS NOS. 291 AND 319 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 AMENDMENT NO. 172 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-63 AMENDMENT NO. 264 TO RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-23 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC AND DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413, 50-414 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369, 50-370 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50 325 AND 50 324 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-400 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated June 20, 2018 (Reference 1), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (collectively referred to as Duke Energy or the licensee) requested U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval of changes to revise the emergency plans for Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 (McGuire), Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee), Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick), Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 (Robinson).
The proposed changes would revise the emergency action level (EAL) schemes, which are currently based on the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) document NEI 99-01, Revision 6 (Reference 2) that was endorsed by the NRC in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (Reference 3), to incorporate clarifications provided by Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Questions (EPFAQs) 2015-013, 2015-014, and 2016-002 (References 4, 5, and 6 respectively).
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
The applicable regulations and guidance for the emergency plans are provided as follows:
2.1 Regulations Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.47, Emergency plans, sets forth emergency plan requirements for nuclear power reactors. Section 50.47(b) establishes the planning standards that the onsite and offsite emergency response plans must meet for NRC staff to make a finding that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Planning Standard (4) of this Section requires that onsite and offsite emergency response plans meet the following standard:
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.
Section 50.47(b)(4) requires the use of a standard emergency classification and action level scheme, ensuring that implementation methods are relatively consistent throughout the industry for a given reactor and containment design, but permits site-specific design considerations and preferences.
Section IV.B of Appendix E, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, to 10 CFR Part 50, 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. By June 20, 2012, for nuclear power reactor licensees, these action levels must include hostile action that may adversely affect the nuclear power plant.
Section IV.B.2 of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 states, in part:
A licensee desiring to change its entire emergency action level scheme shall submit an application for an amendment to its license and receive NRC approval before implementing the change.
2.2 Guidance The EAL development guidance was initially established in Generic Letter 79-50, Emergency Plans Submittal Dates, dated October 10, 1979 (Reference 7). This guidance was subsequently revised in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, dated November 1980 (Reference 8), which was endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.101, Revision 2, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors, dated October 31, 1981 (Reference 9),1 as an approach acceptable to the NRC for the development of an EAL scheme.
As industry and regulatory experience was gained with the implementation and use of EAL schemes, the industry issued revised EAL scheme development guidance to reflect lessons learned, numerous of which have been provided to the NRC for review and endorsement as generic (i.e., non-site-specific) EAL development guidance. Most recently, the industry developed NEI 99-01, Revision 6, which the NRC staff endorsed by letter dated March 28, 2013, as acceptable generic EAL scheme development guidance.
Although the EAL development guidance contained in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, is generic and may not be entirely applicable for some non-passive, large light-water reactor designs, it bounds the most typical accident and event scenarios for which emergency response is necessary, in a format that allows for industry standardization and consistent regulatory oversight. Licensees may choose to develop site-specific EAL schemes using NEI 99-01, Revision 6, with appropriate site-specific alterations as applicable.
NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2003-18, Use of NEI 99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels, Revision 4, dated October 8, 2003, including Supplements 1 and 2 (Reference 10), also provides guidance for developing or changing a standard EAL scheme. In addition, this RIS and its supplements provide recommendations to assist licensees, consistent with Section IV.B.2 of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, in determining whether to seek prior NRC approval of deviations from the guidance.
In summary, the NRC staff considers NEI 99-01, Revision 6, as an acceptable method to develop site-specific EALs that meet the requirements of Section IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and planning standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4), with the understanding that licensees may want to develop EALs that differ from the guidance document.
1 Also see Revision 3, dated August 1992, and Revision 4, dated July 2003 (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML003740302 and ML032020276, respectively).
2.3 NRC Staff Review In its application, the licensee proposes to revise the current EAL schemes for Brunswick, Catawba, McGuire, and Oconee to incorporate clarifications provided by EPFAQs 2015-013 (EAL HG1.1) and 2016-002 (EALs CA6.1 and SA9.1 (SA8.1 for Brunswick)). For Harris and Robinson, the licensee proposes to revise the current EAL schemes to incorporate clarifications provided by EPFAQs 2015-04, 2015-013, and 2016-002 (EAL HS6.1).
The NRC staff reviewed the application and verified that the proposed EAL scheme is consistent with the guidance provided in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, to assure that the proposed EAL scheme meets the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4). The NRC staff reviewed the proposed site-specific EAL scheme, technical basis, and all additional information provided in the licensees application. The NRC staff found that the proposed EALs have modifications from the NEI 99-01, Revision 6, guidance due to incorporation of the clarifications provided by the EPFAQs 2015-04, 2015-013, and 2016-002 as applicable. The NRC staff verified that these modifications do not alter the intent of any specific EAL within a set, recognition category, or within the entire EAL scheme described in NEI 99-01, Revision 6.
The NRC staff verified that the instrumentation and setpoints derived for this proposed EAL scheme are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, address the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are consistent with a standard EAL scheme.
Although the EALs must be site-specific, the NRC staff reviewed the proposed EALs for the following key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme to ensure consistency and regulatory stability:
Consistency, including standardization of intent, if not in actual wording (i.e., the EALs would lead to similar decisions under similar circumstances at different plants);
Human factors engineering and user friendliness; Potential for emergency classification level upgrade only when there is an increasing threat to public health and safety; Ease of upgrading and downgrading the emergency classification level; Thoroughness in addressing issues regarding the completeness and accuracy consistent with Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654 (i.e., the EALs are unambiguous and are based on site-specific indicators);
Technical completeness for each classification level; Logical progression in classification for multiple events; and The use of objective and observable values.
The NRC staff verified that the proposed EAL scheme uses objective and observable values, is worded in a manner that addresses human factors engineering and user friendliness concerns, follows logical progressions for escalating events, and allows for event downgrading and upgrading based upon the potential risk to the public health and safety. The NRC staff verified that risk assessments were appropriately used to set the boundaries of the emergency classification levels and ensure that all EALs that trigger the declaration of an emergency classification are in the same range of relative risk. In addition, the NRC staff verified that the proposed EAL scheme is technically complete for each classification level, accurate, and consistent with EAL schemes implemented at similarly designed plants.
To aid in understanding the nomenclature used in this safety evaluation, the following conventions are used: the first letter signifies the EAL Recognition Category; the second letter signifies the emergency classification level; and the number is the applicable number from the site-specific EAL scheme.
The scheme's generic information is organized by Recognition Category, of which the following are discussed in this safety evaluation:
o A or R-Abnormal Radiation Levels/Radiological Effluent, o C - Cold Shutdown/Refueling System Malfunction, o E - Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, o F - Fission Product Barrier, o H - Hazards and Other Conditions Affecting Plant Safety, and o S or M - System Malfunction.
The emergency classification levels are:
o U = Notification of Unusual Event (UE),
o A = Alert, o S = Site Area Emergency (SAE), and o G = General Emergency (GE).
An EAL set refers to EALs within an EAL recognition category and subcategory that includes an escalation path for one or more classification levels. Not all EAL recognition categories require an EAL set.
This safety evaluation uses the numbering system from the proposed site-specific EAL scheme; however, the numbering system from the generic EAL scheme development guidance contained in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, is annotated in [brackets] to aid in cross-referencing the site-specific EAL numbering convention with that of the guidance.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 Recognition Category C - Cold Shutdown/Refueling System Malfunction 3.1.1 Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson EAL CA6 [CA6]
The intent of this EAL is to ensure that an emergency classification is declared when a hazardous event leads to potential damage to safety systems. The hazardous events of interest include, but are not limited to, an earthquake, flooding, high winds, tornado strike, explosion, fire, or any other hazard applicable for Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson. This EAL is primarily intended to ensure that the plant emergency response organization is activated to support the control room in understanding the event impacts and restoring affected safety system equipment to service. Indications of hazard induced damage to components containing radioactive materials are bounded by EALs CS1, CG1, RS1 and RG1.2 2 The intent of the CS1 and CG1 EAL is to ensure an emergency classification level is declared upon a loss of reactor pressure vessel inventory and/or a loss of reactor coolant system inventory, as applicable, The NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, states that an Alert classification exists when:
Events are in process or have occurred which involve an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant.... Any releases are expected to be limited to small fractions of the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] PAG [Protective Action Guideline] [Reference 11] exposure levels.
The endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, is intended to ensure that an Alert should be declared only when an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant has occurred as a result of a hazardous event. However, there may be cases where a hazardous event only causes damage to a single safety system component or a single safety system train. Additionally, an Alert classification should not be made if the damage from the hazardous event is limited to a safety system component or a safety system train that was inoperable or out of service prior to the event occurring.
The licensee is proposing that an Alert classification will be made when a hazardous event results in indications of degraded performance to one train of a safety system with either indications of degraded performance on a second safety system train or visible damage to a second safety system train, such that the operability or reliability of the second safety system train is a concern. Although different from the endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, this change is acceptable considering that the endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, is intended to ensure that an Alert should be declared only when an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant has occurred as a result of a hazardous event.
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. The NRC staff verified that the numbering, sequencing, formatting, and logical progression for this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and address the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are, therefore, consistent with a standard EAL scheme, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4). The NRC staff also verified that the EAL is worded in an unambiguous manner that addresses human factors engineering and user-friendliness concerns, is technically complete for this emergency classification level, addresses issues regarding completeness and accuracy consistent with Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654, and uses objective and observable values based on site-specific indications.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the site-specific implementation method for this EAL is consistent with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme (identified in Section 2.3 above) and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Section IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff finds this EAL acceptable.
during shutdown or refueling. The intent of the RS1 and RG1 EAL set is to ensure that an emergency classification level is declared upon site-specific indications of a release of radioactivity (gaseous or liquid).
3.2 Recognition Category H - Hazards and Other Conditions Affecting Plant Safety 3.2.1 Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson EAL Set HU1/HA1/HS1 [HU1/HA1/HS1/HG1]
The intent of this EAL set is to ensure that an emergency classification is declared based upon a security-related event.
This EAL set was developed in accordance with the guidance from NRC Bulletin 2005-02, Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events, dated July 18, 2005 (Reference 12), and RIS 2006-12, Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action (Reference 13). The above guidance was applicable for licensees to supplement or modify their EALs, regardless of the specific version of the generic EAL scheme development guidance used, or if the particular licensee developed its EAL scheme using an alternative approach.
Based upon lessons learned from the implementation and use of this EAL set, particularly the insights gained from combined security and emergency preparedness drills, Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson are proposing to not develop EAL [HG1] as provided in NEI 99-01, Revision 6.
EAL HG1 of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, addresses a hostile action that results in the loss of physical control of the facility. Such an action can reasonably be expected to exceed EPA early phase PAG exposure levels offsite for more than the immediate site area, which is the criteria for EAL HG7 in NEI 99-01, Revision 6. Therefore, in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, EAL HG1 is bounded by the EAL HG7.3 Additionally, any event that could result in a radiological release in excess of EPA early phase PAGs would be bounded by EALs [AG1] or [AG2]4 in NEI 99-01, Revision 6.
The NRC staff verified that the Brunswick, Catawba, Harris, McGuire, Oconee, and Robinson EALs RG1, RG2, and HG7 are developed as endorsed and, therefore, bound the events of concern for EAL [HG1].
The NRC staff verified that 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 6.
The licensee chose to modify this EAL set by using a site-specific implementation method that uses a modified numbering format other than that provided in the generic EAL scheme development guidance. The NRC staff verified that the numbering, sequencing, formatting, logical progression, ease of upgrading/downgrading for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and address the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are, therefore, consistent with a standard EAL scheme, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4). The NRC staff also verified that the EAL set is worded in an unambiguous manner that addresses human factors engineering and user-friendliness concerns; is technically complete for each emergency classification level; addresses issues regarding completeness 3 The intent of the HG7 EAL set is to provide Emergency Directors with an escalating emergency classification level path to consider when, in their judgment, entry into the site's emergency plan and mobilization of the emergency response organization and offsite response is warranted.
4 EALs AG1 and AG2 in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 are designated RG1 and RG2 by the licensee. The intent of the RG2 EAL set is to ensure that an emergency classification level is declared upon site-specific indications of potential or actual damage to an irradiated fuel assembly or multiple assemblies.
and accuracy of Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654, and uses objective and observable values based on site-specific indications.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the site-specific implementation method for this EAL set is consistent with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme (identified in Section 2.3 above) and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Section IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff finds this EAL set acceptable.
3.2.2 Harris and Robinson EAL Set HA6/HS6 [HA6/HS6]
The intent of this EAL set is to ensure that an emergency classification is declared based upon a control room evacuation with the inability to control critical plant systems remotely.
The NRC staff verified that the progression from an Alert to a SAE classification level is appropriate and consistent with EAL scheme development guidance. The GE classification level for this specific accident progression is bounded by Recognition Category F, as well as EAL RG1.
EAL HS6 addresses an evacuation of the control room that results in transfer of plant control to alternate locations, and the control of a key safety function cannot be reestablished in a timely manner.
The licensee proposes to modify HS6.1 by removing the defueled mode applicability from EAL HS6.1 for Harris and Robinson. The threshold value for HS6.1 requires a loss of either the reactivity control, core cooling / reactor pressure vessel (RPV) level, or the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) heat removal safety functions. With no fuel in the reactor vessel, the reactivity control, core cooling/RPV level and RCS heat removal critical safety functions do not apply.
EALs RS1.1, Release of gaseous radioactivity resulting in offsite doses greater than 100 millirem (mrem) TEDE [total effective dose equivalent] or 500 mrem thyroid CDE
[committed dose equivalent], and RS2.1, Spent fuel pool level at the top of the fuel racks, provide adequate site area emergency assessment capability while in the defueled condition.
Additionally, the licensee proposes to modify HS6.1 for Harris and Robinson by limiting the modes of applicability to Modes 1, 2, and 3. When in Modes 4, 5, and 6, the reactor is shut down and adequate shutdown margin is required to be maintained. Shutdown margin requirements provide sufficient margin to ensure that acceptable fuel design limits will not be exceeded for normal shutdown and anticipated operational occurrences. This requirement would continue to apply following a control room evacuation.
The NRC staff verified that the numbering, sequencing, formatting and ease of upgrading/downgrading for this EAL set are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and address the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are, therefore, consistent with a standard EAL scheme, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4). The NRC staff also verified that the EAL set is worded in an unambiguous manner that addresses human factors engineering and user-friendliness concerns, is technically complete for each emergency classification level, addresses issues regarding completeness and accuracy consistent with Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654, and uses objective and observable values based on site-specific indications.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the site-specific implementation method for this EAL set is consistent with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme (identified in Section 2.3 above) and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Section IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff finds this EAL set acceptable.
3.3 Recognition Category S - System Malfunction 3.3.1 Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson EAL SA8/SA9 [SA9]
The intent of this EAL is to ensure that an emergency classification is declared when a hazardous event leads to potential damage to safety systems. The hazardous events of interest include, but are not limited to, an earthquake, flooding, high winds, tornado strike, explosion, fire, or any other hazard applicable for Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson. This EAL is primarily intended to ensure that the plant emergency response organization is activated to support the control room in understanding the event impacts and restoring affected safety system equipment to service. Indications of hazard induced damage to components containing radioactive materials are bounded by Recognition Category F, as well as EALs RS1 and RG1. Note: Brunswick uses SA8 in its EAL scheme. Catawba, Harris, McGuire, Oconee, and Robinson use SA9 in their EAL schemes.
As described in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, and the endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, an Alert Class exists when [e]vents are in process or have occurred which involve an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant.
Any releases are expected to be limited to small fractions of the EPA Protective Action Guideline exposure levels. The endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, is intended to ensure that an Alert should be declared only when an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant has occurred as a result of a hazardous event. However, there may be cases where a hazardous event only causes damage to a single safety system component or a single safety system train. Additionally, an Alert classification should not be made if the damage from the hazardous event is limited to a safety system component or a safety system train that was inoperable or out of service prior to the event occurring.
The licensee is proposing that an Alert classification will be made when a hazardous event results in indications of degraded performance to one train of a safety system with either indications of degraded performance on a second safety system train or visible damage to a second safety system train, such that the operability or reliability of the second safety system train is a concern. Although different from the endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, this change is acceptable considering that the endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, is intended to ensure that an Alert should be declared only when an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant has occurred as a result of a hazardous event.
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 NRC staff verified that the numbering, sequencing, formatting, logical progression and instrumentation and setpoints for this EAL are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance and address the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are, therefore, consistent with a standard EAL scheme, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4). The NRC staff also verified that the EAL is worded in an unambiguous manner that addresses human factors engineering and user-friendliness concerns, is technically complete for this emergency classification level, addresses issues regarding completeness and accuracy of Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654, and uses objective and observable values based on site-specific indications.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the site-specific implementation method for this EAL is consistent with the key characteristics of an effective EAL scheme (identified in Section 2.3 above) and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Section IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff finds this EAL acceptable.
3.4 Review Summary The NRC staff has reviewed the technical bases for the proposed changes to certain EALs, the modifications from NEI 99-01, Revision 6, and the licensees evaluation of the proposed changes. The licensee chose to modify certain EALs from the generic EAL scheme development guidance provided in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, to adopt a format that is better aligned with how it currently implements its EALs, as well as with site-specific writers guides and preferences. The NRC staff verified that these modifications do not alter the intent of any specific EAL within a set, recognition category, or within the entire EAL scheme described in NEI 99-01, Revision 6. Thus, the proposed changes meet the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and planning standard 10 CFR 50.47(b).
The NRC staff determined that the proposed changes to certain EALs use objective and observable values, are worded in a manner that addresses human factors engineering and user friendliness concerns, follow logical progressions for escalating events, and allow 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 an emergency classification are in the same range of relative risk. In addition, the NRC staff determined that the proposed changes to certain EALs are technically complete and consistent with EAL schemes implemented at similarly designed plants.
The NRC staff verified that the instrumentation and set points derived for the proposed changes to certain EALs are consistent with the overall EAL scheme development guidance, address the site-specific implementation strategies provided, and are consistent with a standard EAL scheme.
Based on its review, the NRC staff finds that the licensees proposed changes to certain EALs are acceptable and provide reasonable assurance that the licensee can and will take adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency. Specifically, the staff concludes that the licensees proposed changes to certain EALs and site-specific EAL technical basis documents provided by letter dated June 20, 2018, are acceptable for implementation.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commissions regulations, the North Carolina and South Carolina State officials were notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments on February 27, 2019. The State officials had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40346). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1.
Capps, Steven, Duke Energy, letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, License Amendment Request to Revise Emergency Action Levels Consistent with EPFAQs 2015-013, 2015-014, and 2016-002, dated June 20, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML18172A315).
- 2.
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors, dated November 21, 2012 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13091A209).
- 3.
Thaggard, M., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to Ms. Susan Perkins-Grew, Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review and Endorsement of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, dated November 2012 (TAC No. D92368),
dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463).
- 4.
Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Question 2015-013, EPFAQ 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], dated June 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16166A366).
- 5.
Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Question 2015-014, EPFAQ 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], dated June 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16166A240).
- 6.
Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Question 2016-002, EPFAQ 2016-002
[Clarification of Equipment Damage as a Result of a Hazardous Event], dated July 14, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17195A299).
- 7.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Generic Letter 79-50, Emergency Plans Submittal Dates, dated October 10, 1979 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031320278).
- 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, Revision 1, dated November 1980 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040420012).
- 9.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.101, Revision 2, dated October 31, 1981 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090440294), Revision 3, dated August 31, 1992 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740302), and Revision 4, dated July 31, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML032020276).
- 10.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-18, Use of NEI-99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels, Revision 4, dated January 2003, dated October 8, 2003, including Supplement 1 dated July 13, 2004, and Supplement 2 dated December 12, 2005 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML032580518, ML041550395, and ML051450482, respectively).
- 11.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency PAG Manual, Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents, dated January 2017(ADAMS Accession No. ML17044A073).
- 12.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Bulletin 2005-02, Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events, dated July 18, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051740058).
- 13.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-12, Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action, dated July 19, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061530290).
Principal Contributor: Raymond Hoffman, NSIR Date: July 1, 2019
- by memo ML19023A410 ** by email OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/PM NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/LA NSIR/DPR/RLB/BC*
NAME DGalvin BClayton JAnderson DATE 4/3/19 4/2/19 2/12/19 OFFICE OGC **NLO NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/BC NRR/DORL/D NAME JScro UShoop (BSchaff for)
CErlanger (GSuber for)
DATE 4/17/19 5/10/19 6/10/19 OFFICE NRR/D NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/PM NAME HNieh (MEvans for)
DGalvin DATE 7/1/19 7/1/19