ML19290G663
| ML19290G663 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/13/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-0807, NUDOCS 8012180239 | |
| Download: ML19290G663 (75) | |
Text
,,,s s
h..er.4Cn-
.t r r. _e n
.-.... r e c
v.
d.
1 v.t.
s
~~
E r -.. v a.. v.:..- C C.v. r..s e.r n e, 2
v.1 < T_ r_.3. :,
n
. 2 o s.
.u 3
s e.'i..nT.-
., e. r. I.. G vr
.g e C. 3. n v n t n e +1 C o* l r r r r. C m e 5
a v' O C <v'.e 's. T m m r r_ rv.i.
Or=C.L:
-a t n
Aucua
.a r ila. v 1 A. r n <. c 6
a.-
- e. r.
c.J : C 0 v.. v. r.. m. r e O e,
.e T.. r_
u v
1.
7 8
Nuclear Fegulatory Commisrien Foom 1046 9
1717 H Ctroet, N.
k'.
Washington, D.
C.
10 Saturday, December 13, 1980 11 12 The subccamittee aet, pursuant to notice, at 13 10:15 6.n.
14 n L f..e.,
- v. r.r. n_ r.;. c.
r#cecrr.
1 15 P.
s'. C " L L T E, Chairnan 16 S.
L.1 N E C S K I, Chairman
- ... n..
17
- r f' ti..r T A' A.
. "'s 'j '. e n D. C' TTr T
4*L LL
.J wub w.
18 an.
r S m w. n ica 3.
., a.. t.:
jg
- 3., C.'. C. ".'.T. r. ". A N u.
-.. -::vre 20 21 22 23 24 25 gQMD ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
21L 3 r, c : r e r u - e 1
u _ua a u z a a2 u 2
"R.
0 E l l E ? :
Thc nesting will now come to order 3
" hic is a centinuation of the ACES joint meetino 4
of the Subcommitt'es on 0.eacter Radiological Effects and 5
Site Evaluation.
6 Todny the subcommittee is m ee tinc with the NEC 7
sta f f to discuss the draft environnental statement rela ted 8
tc the operation of the Vir-il C.
Furmer 'uclear Station 9
Unit 'iu n t er 1.
10
- r.
John :cKinlay, coated on ny rient, is the 11 designated Federal employee for this meeting.
A tranceript 12 of the meetin~ is being kept.
It is requested that each 13 speaker rirst identify himself or herrelf and speak with 14 cutficient clarity and voluno so that he or she can be 15 readily heard.
16 de will nov begir the meeting, and I will call 17 upon Jr. %ayne Hodston of the JFC ctaff who will direct the 18
'i,C staff presentation.
aayne?
19 M3. '0USTON:
C c o ?.
.::c rn in g, it is a pleasure to be 20 here this morning.
21 (lau-hter.)
22
" F., HOUETON:
I cee you hava devoted about two 23 hourr to this subject.
Fron where I stand, 1r nct sure we 24 c a.n fill all of that void.
I wculi like to rtart out, ;.erhaps, ty 7ivin just 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- o. n. c.
1 a few minutes cf tackground tc the particular subject that 2
we are discurring this acrninc.
3 Approximately nine years ago, the Ccamicsion 4
publiched in th e 7ederal r egicter propoced changes to what 5
was thon
- 3. p p e n d i x 3 to Part 50, whicP vere the Atomic Enercy 6
Commiccion's implementing regulatics with respect to the 7
National Environmental and Folicy Act, which was the 8
proposed 2nnex to Appendix D,
dealing with the sutsect of 9
accident riskc and their propoced treatment for 10 environmental reports preparad by applicants, and 11 environmental impact statemente prepared by the staff cf the 12 Commicsion.
13 It was that prop 0ced annox which intrcduced a 14 cliccification scheme for postulated accidents the one 15 thrcuch nine ccheme.
Anon: others, perhaps, it ic 16 noteworthy providing come iefinition or, as sc=e might 17 prefer te say, a characteriration rather then definition of 18 Clacs 9 accidents, which we re very seriour accidents, which 19 were co n ci:le re d ac suf f icio ntly rcnota in lik elihoo d of 20 occurrence so their environmental imptcts nead nct be 21 considared.
22 The proposed ann +x 7tayed as a proposoc rulemaking 23 activity for acproximately eicht cr nine years, nover having 24 been adocted ac a final rule.
It did, however, sorve the 25 purpoce of rettin: Con =iccion policy on the matter and as a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202: 554 2345
216 1
result the staff's environn en tal impact sta tements over the 2
yearc for nuclear power plants dutifully reflected the 3
guidance and the cri te ria that were precented in that annex 4
and reported the results of calculationc of conroquence of 5
certain postulated accidents but, declined to deccribe the 6
consequence of a co-called Class 9 accident.
7 In a few instances, the staff had become somewhat 8
uncomfortable with that position, cerhaps m. cst no t a bl y in 9
the Offshore ;ower Systems care floating nu clear plant where 10 the staff concidered that although the likelihood was very 11 low, the possibility of a ceremelt and melt-tnrcuch accidant 12 in the case of a ficating nuclear plant had rather 13 definitely the potential fe r crea ting an impact en the 14 environment, rather different in character and maanitude 15 frc: those which would be expected for a land-baced plant.
16 2s woull have been and wac anticipated, the staff 17 pocition created a few protlemr, carticularly with hearing 18 boards, becaur= they had been accuctoned to tha policy of 19 not treating and not concid.ering clasc 9 tccidents.
20 As a rasult of that and c ther activitier, the 21 staff's treatment of the Pyramid case as an example, the ultimate site review, for exanple.
The third one w ould be 22 23 the staff's treatment and its cubliched environmental impact 24 sta temen t on the Clinch Piver treeder reactor, where it did 25 consider very zarious clac-C accidentr, cauced the ALDER 00N REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
217 1
Comnicsicn tc requert the ctaff to make a reccanendation for 2
a chance in that policy in some form.
3 The ctaff dic that approximately a year aco and 4
the result of that was the publicaticr on 'une 13, 1980 of a 5
Statement of !nterin Folicy which deac ceve ral things.
6
-en ?, it war an efficial announcement by the 7
Commission of wi th d ra wa l of that proposed rulemaking, the 8
withdrawal of the annex, indicating that it would no longer 9
be usef ul or desirable to use the clasrification scheme of 10 that annex; and to treat within reasonable bounds the 11 consequences of all kinds of accidentc that could possibly 12 occur and, to the extent tnat the state of the art allows, 13 to treat the matters probacilictically.
14 I perhaca need not co into some of the criticisms 15 of the annex, having t0 10 with the extent to thic which 16 this new trea tment of accid ents in nuclear pcwer plant 17 environnental staterents in scf t r as backfittinc cr 18 reconcideration cases for which final statements had already 19 been icsued.
Tt was b a sica ll; a forward-lookinc policy, as 20 a pracnat:c Tatter, to apcly it to new impact ctatements as 21 they becane due or were n ece csa ry to produce.
22 Tha first eno to which the policy statenen t 23 appliet - this hacpened by cP :.ce - wculd have been the 24 Vir :11 Funner clant which is in the staff application, and a 25 draft ctatement had been rublished alco back in 'une of 1979.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH.NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
218 1
In that draft s ta te me n t the treatment of plant 2
accideuts was in accordance with the old annex, and what we 3
h ave dene here, published in "oventer 19S0, a cupplement to 4
that dra f t Which ncV incorporatas a revision or the 5
treatnett of accidente in acccrdance with this pclicy.
6 I would like to run through, if I may, some of the 7
highliahts of that dccument.
" have a handout here and some 8
viewgr?phs which consist of, es sen tiall y, juct the ottline 9
of the draft statoment of thic particular section, or 10 chapter of the sta temen c; and come of the hichlightc that 11 are in that statement.
12 I mi7ht add, Mr. Mooller mentioned that the ctaff 13 was here, thern are twc of us.
A number of peoplo 14 con tribu ted to the writing of this statement and the 15 computaticns that it reflected.
It did not seer, merhaps, 16 r e a so na bla or nececcary to bring everybody down this 17 mornino.
Out I do havo with me Sa rb ec from the staff, who 18 vac one of the principal crntributcrs, particularly to the 19 conrutations that came out of the 'eactor Faf et y Etudy 20 methodology.
21 There are four principal partc of th3s particular 22 section.
In the firrt part there is a descriptien of the 23 general cueracteristics of accidents, which r an attempt on t
24 our part to write it in such a manner that it could be 25 reason 1bly understcod hy + well-inf or ed but lay readcr.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 4T VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
219 1
That rection ic intended to be screwhat generic 2n 2
character. Al c, ec intenc come modifications to repeat it 3
in subcecuent statements.
The next major ; art is also a rather trief 5
deccription of our actual cxperience with accidente at 6
nuclear power plants and th e impactc on the en viron m en t that 7
have been obcerved.
That alsc would be expected to be 8
ess en tiall y a generic treatment of that subject that may 9
change from time to time ac more experience is gained.
10 The next section deals with the somewhat more 11 specifics af the Fcamer plant, dealine with the provicions 12 that exist at the Summer plant that act to mitigate the 13 consequences of accidents a nd the impact on tho en viron men t.
14 Finally, an assecement of the accident risk and 15 thn im;act, particularly radiological impact af accidents on 16 that facility.
17 loinc back now to the first of the fcur major 18 parts of the ctatoment.
L'n der the general characteristics 19 of accidentc we have described comu of
.he ch a ra ct e ris ticc 20 of fiscion prcducts, particularly the scaticns of the 21 dominant invantories of radioactivity in a nuclear power plant, most of it, of cource, beinc in the ce re ; some of it 22 23 being, a uutstantial amount, being in cpent fuel. After a 24 period Of time there also being some in the primary cooling 25 sycten and in the vaste-handling cyst-ms.
ALDERSON REPORTIN G COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2?45
220 1
We also describe briefly some of the properties of 2
fission products that are relevant to their characteristics 3
or behavior if they are releared, and tnir includes 4
references to chemical propertiec, their volatilities, and 5
characteristics of radioactive decay.
It is a rather 6
elemental treatment.
7 We ~tiso discuss the exposure pathways, 8
particularly drawina attention to a comparison with pathways 9
that are reprecented in another section of the statement and 10 are typical for so-called normal operational releases.
We 11 find out that they i :e essentially the same, there being one 12 or two differences.
When one conciders corenelt 13 possibilities, one hac an additional pathway to the 14 groundwater that is not e cc e n tia ll y treated in the normal 15 operation of a releace situation.
16 We clso discuss wha t happenc to radicactive 17 material in terms of disburning itself, and the ganeral 18 ten dency for the concentration of naterial to 2 reduced ar 19 it is 'icbursed in the environment.
20 It goes on to dircucs, again rather briefly, 21 health effects that can be the result of expocure to radiation both for rela tively high doses which can produce 22 23 fatal injurier in a relatively short period cf time, a 24 pericd of woeks or months, and a cancer risk fron low doses 25 of radia tion.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
221 i
We e.lro describe what are otten reforreJ 3 as the 2
economic and -ccietal impacts of plan-accidents under the 3
general heading of health ef f ects a vcidance, since all of 4
then really full under th-t particular category.
'"h a s e ara 5
treated also in a concequence,odel that is applied, th e 6
results of which wa wi ll sce in a moment.
7 In the accident oxperience section we indicate 8
that at this time de h a ve in th e Uni ced S ta tes in licensed 9
commercial nuclear power 500 reactor years of operating to ex p e rien ce.
11 de describe, a g a.:. n rather briefly, the experience 12 the t we have had wi th the accident at Three Mile Island in 13 terms of its reletres, exposuros to people, a nd a brief 14 reference to the fact that there has been a psychological 15 impact to that accident.
16
'T e also describe accidents at O ther reactor 17 faciliti's ra the r b ric-fly, highlighting the fact that there 18 war a cora meltdown, or partial meltdcwn at FEE:'I Unit 1 19 many years ago, and the fact that it was cleaned up and 20 actually casured ope ra tio n 'nd cc m ple t e d its original 21 mission.
22 Eecause of the difficulty one has in finding in 23 the experia: ;e record serious ciccidents t ha t hava an impact 24 on the environment, our naterials also include a brief 25 reference to the rither old, now, windscale accident, in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
222 1
whirh sc:sthing in the crder of 20,000 curier cf 2
radioactive iodine was re le a se; into the environment.
I 3
point out that it was a vary different type of reactor.
4 This kind of accident cannot really happen in a lightwater 5
reECtor.
6 M.
PAPKEP:
'io u l d fo u like to entertain comments, 7
or would yo u like to finish?
8 Cn the one that was just up there, the 6.1.2, 9
first you havo licensed cover reactor experience and the 500 10 reactor years; nnd then, 2t the bottom, you do include, as 11 you just mentioned, the 4indscale.
12
'i c lid it not be appropriate to but in, although 13 emphasizing the 500 reactor years licensed, some ra ther 14 large number of reactor years f rom otPer reactors, the 15 Hanford and the Zavannah ri'.or reactors?
e gave co n side r a ti on to doinc 16
E.
'9 0 E ~ T C "
17 that.
Cuite clearly, also it could be expanded to include 18 worldwide experience; we co uld in cl ud e e x pe rien ce from 19 procuction recctors, test reactors, research reactors.
It 20 7ets comotimer hard to kn0W juct where to stop.
21 abvious:
, the nunter of reactor year: as far as nuclear rea ctors are concerned, of all tyt-s, that one could 22 23 reprecent in terms of expcrienc3 wCuld be perhaps in an 24 order of magnitude la rger.
'Mybe it is a little on the 25 higher side.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
223 1
Then thnre ir a quortion of all the "a va l 2
reactors. o t all the inf orma tion is readily available to 3
sur that all up.
~c, we cert cf tentatively care to the 4
decicion that for that purpose it would be perharc best to 5
u n:i e r -r e p r e s e n t the experi nce by li mi t ir: : it to just 6
licensed nuclear power plants in the United Etates, thcGe 7
that are subject to our reculations.
8
'! R. PARNEF:
I really had scre of the prychologic 9
effect on tha readinc, that would include the Windacale.
If 10 your first pa ra gra ph ic lirensed pcwer reactors only, then 11 in simple logic you would report only the existing accident 12 experience for those licenced reactorc.
That is what I am 13 driving at.
14 ME. :4O U S TON:
We do, of course, give reference to 15 an Cak Fidge cocument tha t hac cummarized quite a nunter of 16 reactor accidente of different kinfs.
It could be expanded 17 in that respect; that is correct.
18 "E.
LAWEOSKT:
If ycu diu rhat,too, you miynt be 19 obliged to retort, you wo uld ha va difficulty getting 20 information.
You know, if you tried to make it 21 all-inclusive cf reactor years.
Yer, you can ge either way.
If you 23 want to make it b a la nce d, just delete the reference to 24 Wiadrcale.
25
'E-I-.1.l E O S E I :
2r tbo Oak Eidge repert, which ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
224 1
probably talks,abcut SL-1 and a few other things 2
"E.
"O U IT O N :
Y-r, it does.
3 MF. PA??EE:
It is a l wa yc the old business, we 4
alwayc talt so much abcut the had things in reactors and 5
nininira the ; cod experience.
It is not a major thing.
6 Let's ao on, cir.
7 MR. 900? TON:
We havo words that say in effect 8
that the impact on the envirCnment in our operating 9
experience is very, very small.
10
- n the next najor section, in tne principal 11 section of this ch a p te r, va do discuse featuras of the plant 12 a n :' cf the cito which, as we indicate, do miticate the 13 consequences of accidents should they occur here.
One finds 14 very brief refarencer to ecacured caf=ty features such as 15 containment, air coolant cystem, containnent heat removal, 16 and scray sy7 tens, filter cyst?Is and, we alco added a 17 section hore to indicate what the staff has done on the 18 application, lassons laarned and requi rements stenming from 19 tho TMI-2 accident.
20 Thic is is in a cense a very triaf extract of 21 material presented in nucn morn compr=hencive form in the 22 staff cafety evaluation report which, cf course, has net yet o.3 been issued.
24 ME. KE?
Warn in thir d is cu s c i o.-
on mitigation,
- ea.ing tPc ;rcpeced rule that ip; eared in *he Tederal 25 in a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
aon 1
3ccist=r notica, the stat = cent is maio th?t ir the analysis 2
and discuscion of risk atcut equal attontion will be civen 3
to probability of eccurrence of releares to the probability 4
of occurrance of environmental consequences of those 5
releacec which, I think, sayc that one is goina to start 6
lookin7 t probabilit, occurrence >nd discucsinc it.
7 In your discussion of mitigatior features, there 8
is not any incication - at least explicitely - that any of 9
these sitigation features micht not work.
10 It seems to me that one does not gat into the 11 class ? cituatica unlers one nitigating factors do not 12 work.
Theref e re in tn e di-cuscion, which I gather is to 13 som extent to a nontechnically trained audience, it wculd 14 be well to indicate th : rearon why it is likely te get inte 15 a clac 9 accident.
16 Ecme of these thingc may not work as desi7ned, or 17 they may malfunction and th a re is some indication, 18 experience er analysic, Of what the probahility of 19 malfunction might be; and that indAed thic is tha way one 20 gets at thase protalictic nunters which finally produce 21 quantitative estimatas later On in th a report.
MOUSTON:
There are two secticns in tais 22 23 chepter which tear on your cc n en t.
One has to de with the 24 experience treatment in wich we make a deliberate attonpt to 25 prcvido advice anc infornation abcut the frequency of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) " % 2345
226 1
cccurrences, the actual r?ccrde, if you will.
2 Tha ether is in the last section on the assessment 3
of th e rick where we do specifically roint out, not with 4
r9spect to specific safeguard systems, but we do indicate in 5
tha t acr'ssment that they may not wo rk, and there are 6
calculations that have been :f one, that specifically make 7
assuc; tione about degradation cf nuclear safety features.
8 The contrast that we make to go incc the so-called 9
clacs C,
w h ic.h is not as charp, is pointed cut with recrect 10 to the single feature of c on tain me n t.
Pasically, what we 11 say, if we get into a situation where you have a containment 12 f ailure situa tion, either coincident with an accident er as 13 an immediate conscquence of the accident in a class 9 14 region, that ic characterized in that fashicn later on.
u5
'E.
TERT:
I recognize that.
I was tryini ta 16 speak in the context of that, the design featurer described 17 in c.3.1 that are part of the mi tica ti o n cycten.
From 18 readinc that ever, one would cet the inpression tha t with 19 all th 2ce ?.itiaa tion f aaturoc One certainly is not going tc 20 have a serious accident.
21 It coems to me one might consider ac part of the 22 discussion of the design features a ccament that these are 23 reliable but one oxpects i' there is some prchatility cf 24 failuro.
Incoed, it is th a t probability of failure that 25 lesdc to the c'1culations lat=r er in th? rarort of a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHu"GTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
227 1
certain probability of release.
2 M2. 0UST CN.
I think your ocint is well taken.
3 The one line up here that doec not really fit under the 4
catecory, I think, ir the reference to ECCE.
Thi-is a 5
preventive rather than nitigating feature.
6 I think your comm ent would he a propos what we are 7
to include in that discussion, particularly some s ta teme n t 8
about what happens to the ECC2, for exanple, if it fails to 9
function in the fashion that it is intended to.
It is that 10 kind of thing which can give rise to the need for sone of 11 thc other features, and if they fail, one can get 12 progrecsivaly worse.
I think that is a good point.
13 YEFR.
I am not trying to be critical becauce 14 what you have undertaken hare is a difficult thina to do.
I 15 assune it is coinc to go on as you get some experience with 16 it.
17 It just occurred to P.e that cone introductory 18 material of rhat kind mighc he inctructive.
19 ME.
'J J U S T C N :
In adaition to design featurer of 20 the plan itself, + hey are also, again, rather trief 21 raferences to 'he featurer associated with the celection of 22 the approval of the site.
Surely, nothinc more than that 23 they co ply with the reacter siting criteria.
These are 24 designed exclucionary, hava teen evalun.ted ac co-called lov 25 poculatian tone, popula tion s a t a distanca.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
228 1
Considera.tirn has been civen to whether there are 2
external hazards, that is harards in the immediate 3
e n v ir on m en t of the plant, that can create safety problenc 4
for the operation of the plant itself.
This is the kind of 5
thing that includar the likelihood of aircraft intact, of 6
freight trainc pascing by.
7 You find here a brief section on emergency 8
p re p a red n( s c.
Unfortunately, the status of the planning and 3
preparedness cf the facility and the site at this point in 10 time is not complete, so thic pa rticula r section really 11 calls attention to the existence of regulationc recently 12 published that must be im plemen ted at the facility, which 13 aro expected to reduce the rick asrociated with the 14 potential consecuences of 1ccidents.
15 I nicht acntion here --
16 fF. XTER:
Excus= ne, I want to make cure I 17 understood your statement.
I think you said that the 18 energency prepareaness at 'unnc,r ic not complete.
That has 19 not been approved?
20 ME. 10UETON:
That is ccrrect.
It is in process.
21
- ?.
7 ERR:
I guess th a t is where you are, but on 22 pace 6-12 I notice a sta teten t that the results shown for
~
23 the facility io not includa a provision of the consequenco 24 model that crovides fcr evacuation.
Is that the reacon it 25 iras not ?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) f 54 2345
22E 1
"9.
'!O U S T O N :
That 10 one of the reasons, yos.
=
2 ccurse, you have ;ut your fincer on an area in which we 3
expect to ;et 7any cornentc on, our failure, if you will, to 4
reprerent the rotential tenefitc that evolve by taking 5
reasonable protective action.
6 This was a key comment made by the Commissioners 7
when we briefed them on the subject.
8 dR. KE30:
Is it a n ti cipa ted that whan the 9
emercency system, or emergency scheme, is finally approved, 10 that this EIS vill be reviced, or is that for latar on?
11 MR. HOUSTON:
That relates to the difficulty that 12 I mentioned a roment ago that is crea ted here.
Let me 13 answer yoth question in two parts, if I may.
14 Te do intend, in issuing the final vercion o# the 15 supplement of this section, to incorporate a representation 16 of concoqusnc+S that when protective action consideratione 17 a re included, to show that the risk is lowered.
18
'! o w, th= extent to shich thoce in the actual 19 computation of procedures, tho extant to which one can 20 re p re ca n t that this is a direct reflection of the state of 21 planninc in that f a cility is a rather = crc difficult
~
22 question.
It would be a Judgmental question.
23 In fact, the scheduling is such that I would not 24 expect the emergency plans for thic facility to be fully 25 approved at the tire that the fin;l supplenent of the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
230 1
statenent ic irsued.
With respect to that natter as well as 2
some of the other t a tters that tie in wi th the cafety 3
evaluaticn, wo find ourceives in 1 traditional situation in 4
which cur treatnent by the ctaff cf the environmental review 5
hac been at arn's length from the ca f e t y review.
They have 6
tended to be independent from one another.
We still have a 7
lot of that tradition behind uc.
8 With this particular subject matter it is, to my 9
way of thinking, imporsible from a concon-sense point of 10 view to completely divorre the two.
11 This wac one of the problems, I think, that some 12 of you paoole had in the fl oa tin g nuclear plant case, when 13 the staff ca.me to a conclusion in its environmental rsview 14 that in effect some kind of a 7totective device should co on 15 in these plants.
Yet, it was not treated as a cafety 16 problem.
17 I think that is one tit of evidence that it is 18 hard to kaep the cafety e v alua tion anc the implementation of 19 the Atomic Enercy Act completely separate in ?n 20 environmental review, in in environmental irpact ctater.ent 21 under EP A requirer.en ts.
une re s ul t of that has been in our 22 schedule procars to treat then as beina somewhat 23 independent.
24 ron ny ;cint Of view, in preparing th ere accident r
25 irract ctatements, it woul. E r-very desirable if the safety ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
231 1
evaluation were completed, but it is not, and we find 2
ourselver with the nececrity of iccuing it withcut the 3
environmental im pa ct stat. rent.
ie have referenccd the 4
en viron m en t al incact e v al ua tic.9, but it is no+ a statement 5
that acw axists.
V TPF:
'iill you have, although it has not been 6
7 improved, a fairly detailef proposal by the licensee?
8 MR. FOUFTO:
Yer.
9 MP. KEPR :
n' h a t you will probably work cn is 10 whatever version you had at the time, or ha ve you decided?
11 cE. 90USTUMs Yes, basically.
One of the Fey 12 things that vc have, that I believe we have had for Summer, 13 its inservice chapter, there has been a lot of activity over 14 the list year to ha ve evalua tions done of how long it takes 15 to evacuate a number cf people.
16 On virtually all nuclear pcwer plant sites in tne 17 country we hav-estimates, including the estimates for the 18 Summer facility.
Eo, we have that kind, VPat ene might call 19 site crecific information, which is uref ul in making th e 20 judenent on what sorts of parameters are ured, and perhapr 21 what kind of an evacuation model to use in the consequence
^
22
'Odel*
- ?.. lAN?.OSK!
'unt they have approval cf the 23 24 e ?rC9CC7 plan, or is tho tining cf tho documentation of 25 this application cuch that they have come time?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
232 1
ME. "CUSTCN:
This applicant will have to have an 2
improved em er -;en c y plan before it gets an C1.
This is a 3
natter of the ravisions to Appendix S to Fart 50, and a 4
revisicn to Part 50 itself, which I think were published in 5
the Federal Register, and the final rule secame effective in 6
'l o v e m b e r.
They will apply to thic facility, and those rules 7
will be complied with before they cet a license.
Among 8
othat things, that o.aans approval cf the emerpency plan.
9 M3. L C '4 0.C SKI :
Does it mean, then, an C1 for a 10 low power opera tion?
11 MR. 3CUSTCN:
I believe Summer is in that 12 category, but there would te a difference in their OL, for 13 example, at Sequoyah for low pcwer te, sting cperations.
The 14 requirements are not quite as stringent for that.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
233 1
Coming to the conclusion, then very briefly, that 2 we find fror these considerations that the imcactr are 3 potentially severe, but wculd have small lik elihood of 4 occurrence.
This conclusien ir based upon a combination of 5 historical experience, the expectation, if you will, of 6 compliance with regulations, ccupied with tha probabilistic 7 risk assessment, we find the risks are comparable to those 8 associated with releases occurring during no rmal opera tion,
9 particular when protective action are taken.
10 That conclusion ic, perhaps, not as adequately 11 reflected in the text as it shcuid be, and hopetully will be
' e find no unicue 12 in the final version of this.
13 circumsta nces at Fummer, particularly with respect to the 14 site, tha t warrant a special recommendation as to 15 modifica tion or addition to th e derign.
16 This concludec my presentation.
17
'! E. LAWROSXI:
Thst is true even though it is 18 within 100 miler of Charlacton?
19 MR. "FBP:
He is talking about the Charleston 20 ea rt hqua k e.
21
-; E. L A'J R O E K I:
That is the reason for my 22 ques ticn.
Dr. Verr is correct, that ic what I had in mind.
M ECUSTON:
This ccaelusion cin be 23 24 pisunderctood, let's put it this way.
It should not be 25 thought of, and I am not sure that it is ctated procerly ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
23u 1 there, that taced on the considerations that are reflected 2 here we find nothing to changa the situation.
~here are 3 safety considerations, but there are not discussed in here, 4 that could have an effect on the plant.
5 This is not an overall acsesraent of the Summer 6 facility from a safety and environmental point of view.
7 MF. M7RR.
As you went through this exercise, 8 which must have been quite instructive, have you thought 9 about wh e the r this sort of thing can be done generically for 10 all plants, rather than site specifit?
11 ME. MPUSTON:
Yec.
'J e have given a lot of theucht 12 to that.
As a mattar of fact, a year ago in the catter of 13 preparing what ultimately became the Statement of Policy, 14 there was a Tood deal of staff cpinion that the correct 15 thing or the right thing to do at that point in time would 16 have been to go into a generic rulemaking proceeding, and to 17 produce a generic anvironmental impact statement fcr nuclear 18 power plants generally, and make it a ma tter of rulemaking.
19 Some of ur felt that this would to an undertaking 20 of not inconsiderable naanitude.
It would probably result 21 in that one would then have to make the decision to hold up 22 a n y licensino activity until this was finished, or proceed 23 to publish the environmental impact statemen ts in accordance 24 with the old annex that says ycu can talk about clacs o 25 accidents.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
235 1
Our c7nclusion was sort of a compromice that caid, 2 let's do it on a case by cace bacic, tryinc a little bit 3 different treatment, and build a little body of experience, 4 which ult!'ately in a few yearc will allow uc to do a 5 generic statenent, Or at leact a generic sta temen t that 6 micht treat part of the matter, and then entor into a 7 rulemaking.
8 ME. i~rRE:
I did not express my question very 9 well.
It ic really to thic la tt e r that I was referring.
10 Having gone throuch the exorcice once, h a ve you picked out 11 items in the analysis that would say to you, given a number 12 of cites, there are coing to be things that will nake uc 13 have to do it cite specific, or we think that with a bit of 14 experience we probably can lo it generally on a technical 15 basic, acide from the problem of rulemaking, and so on, 16 which is very real.
17 What in your exterience up to now points out key 18 thingc that would cay, we a l r.o c t have to concider each cite 19 specifically, and de a reasonable job, or, up to now have 20 you not found anything that ic not se cite-crecific that you 21 could concider ;eneric traatsent ?
22
'E. "OUSTON:
One of the thinac thet appearc to ba 23 croppinc up in respondino to that quection ic that it ceems 24 likely to us, although I cannot sa y that we have produced 25 enough information to make a proper judgnent, in considerinc ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
4C0 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
236 1 impacts beyond some dictanca, which may be on the order of 2 100 to 20 0 mile c, the differences aconc sites will probably 3 tend to disappear for the most part.
4
'here# ora, that certainly gives rise to tha 5 possibility that one might treat generically intacts beyond 6 soma dictance, which may turn cut to be somewhat arbitrary, 7 and then the site specific impac ts a re limited to those 8 within that d i sta n ce.
9 This would appear to be a very real possibility to 10 me.
I an not sure just how roon we would be able to 11 implement somathing like that, but perhaps in a year er 12 two.
13 MR. (FFR:
A second cuestion, which I think in 14 rela ted to that.
You reach a conclusion here that having 15 trea t ed the cla?: o accident and its environmental impacts, 16 you saw no reason to chango the conclucion that you had 17 reached originally, without treatina.
18
R. FOUSICN:
That is correct.
19 MF. <EF3 Again, as you went th ro ugh and looked 20 at thingc, if you look just cualitatively at other reactors 21 at other sites, do ycu think it is likely that you will 22 reach that conclucion in acct cases, or that there a re 23 things that are different about other siter which might 24 indeed changa the conclucion that ycu would have reached 25 witacut trea tinc 'he class ??
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
237 1
1R. 'iC US T O N :
I guecc ! can encuer tha question 2 this way.
3 I think our expectation would be that we would 4 probably reach the came conclucion in noct casec in the 5 future by reason of the likelihood that we would be 6 presented with casec that would be difficult would becowe 7 very small.
8 Maybe I did not say that quite clearly.
let me 9 sa y it another way.
I doubt that va will have anybody como 10 in a nd cropose to build a plant like Eavencwood.
11 MP. KFRP:
'W h a t you are tryinc to tell me is, if I
'2 throw away population density, neglect that you are likely 13 to reach about the came conclusion independently of whether 14 you do a class 4 or not.
If I put such things high 15 population d encity, then you micht reach a different 16 conclusion with clars 9 than you would if you jid not reach 17 it.
18 1E. -:G U ST O R :
Yec.
19 MR. KERR:
That is one of tha '< e y item?
20 ME. -GUSTON:
Yes.
21 MR. ?EER:
Are there any othur things of that 22 kind, any sort of general c'.:aracteristics of th e cite that 23 almost 7.i g h t stick out as you have gone through this 24 analyciz?
M :,. 'CUSTCU:
There are como thincc that ! quars 7
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
232 1 would rerrecent poscibilitier that a priori concideration of 2 which would not be clear.
3
3.
EEF:
L;t'c cay, for example, that you have 4 locatec a plant on Laka Mi ch i g an, or the Missiccippi River, 5 or some big bod'.
of water.
? r o.m what ycu have reen, do you 6 think concileration cf clacc C might make you reach a 7 different conclusion under thcce circurctances?
8 Have you looked in e no uch detail to be able to 9 make a judgment?
10 MR. ROUSTCN:
Poscibly we have not lcoked at 11 eaough detail.
Fror the way you have characterized it, I 12 would not expect that those conciderations would alter our 13 cc aclusion.
The t y,7 e of thinc thar I have in mind might be 14 little difficult from the s pricri side, if one proposed to 15 hava a plant in the croximity of sonethinc in the nature of 16 a na tional monumen t, or a n3+ional hictoric part of 17 so m e thin g which ever;bedy in the United S ta te r would be up 18 in armc about if it vera contaminated and denied uce of for 19 100 years, even though one could not c o m e n c t ra te 20 pa rt icula rly a larga economic impact by compariton, that 21 could ba a concideration.
~
22 MP. L;W90 SKI:
W5n t abcut an ectuary?
23
- 13. d C U S T C :l :
That matter, I think has been f airly 24 well treatment in the FEN csse.
25
- 13. LANOCSK!:
Out I think in answer tc.' r. ' err *c ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
229 1 question, sculd the concidaration of a clasr 9 apply?
2 MF.
'2 0 C E T C :..
For a ficating plant located in an 3 estuary?
4
'E.
l A'4C C SK l a A f loc ti;.g plant?
5 "9.
'C U S T O." :
Another wa1 to try to ancwer ycur 6 question.
In drsfring the =nterin policy statement, thore 7 is a statement in there that t we. of the Ccamissioners drew 8 exception to, namely, that we really den't expect to find 9 any different c.]nclusion in the future than we would have by 10 continua tion of past practice.
11 Past practice revealod tha t consideration of class 12 9 accidents had occurred in spite of what the ennex said 13 with respect to certain specific kinds of problems that 14 cropped up in the ficat_ng 7uclear plant.
l' is in that 15 sense that we made the stata=ent that there could be unique 16 circunsta nc?s in the future that could become considerations 17 that cculd be associated with very serious a c ci d.e n t s.
18
'.' s don't think that Juct thic change in 19 meth odolog y in and cf itself ic going to te the thino that 20 reveals this.
I think that this is part of the answer to 21 the question, becauce we are duct doaling with numbers 22 here.
It would be the fact itcelf, the existence or 23 non-e xic tence which would to the key question.
24 ZF.
'7EE:
I also would quess that ycu can 25 continua thic in the f u '.u r a.
You mentioned San Cnoften as ALCERSoN REPcRTING COMPANY,INC.
400 %RGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024(202) 654-2345
240 1 one of tho sitor.
You may might that the WAFE-1400 2 trestment of ceismic evonta called into quertion more than 3 others.
4
'R.
LIVECSKI:
" hat about ChYrleston.
5 10
'EPE:
My inprorsion is that the Charleston 6 earthquake has not moved.
If you don't move the earthquake 7 away from Charlaston, it ic probably okay.
If you say that 8 it can be moved anywhere in this province, that ic another 9 quaction.
10 ME. "#ELLEE:
I had a question about where you o
11 from here.
Are you doing cimila r environmental impact 12 statement; for Indian roint and 7.icn ?
CUST O N :
No.
13 MR.
14 "F.
MOELLER:
1 acx that becauce thoce two plants 15 are undercoing a whole reaccessment in termc of their 16 potential inpacts.
V:
dCUSTOS:
They are getting enough special 17 18 treatment.
v MGELLES:
You are not doing a draft 19 20 environmen tal inpact statement for then incorrcrating clanc 21 9 accidentc?
3?. JOUSTON:
They are gettina a rather detailed 22 23 look at from s plant cpecific point of view in termc of 24 serious accidentc, clasc 9 if you will.
Th^re are 25 concequc nces ca ?. rui t tio n s inc den? Iscocia ted with thase ALD.1:;ON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
241 1 studies.
Eut the purpoce ic really not so much 2 environmental ac it is to deternine whatl.er or certain 3 cropocei mitigatinc featuras nicht te caticfactory applied 4 on an inpact benefit tacis.
5 In other wordc, 'he ctudier are not being done 6 becauce of EF i.
7 MF.
'C 7LLE? :
You perhapc covered it, but ! war 8 curiour on the degree to whicn the CPAC code in plc.yi nc a 9 rolo in these asseccmentc.
to YR. JOUETON:
All th= probabilictic 11 representations and probability distrilution s come from CEAC 12 code evaluations.
13 MR. Y0ELLER:
Why I raice that, the main purposes 14 of our meetino on Thurcety a r. d Friday were to review the 15 reactor caf e ty rece a rc!. precran.
We did review tha 16 improv : ent and upda tirm of the meteorological component of 17 the CP AC code.
To that, then, is vary important to the 18 cu ccecc and to the accuracy, and so forth, of your work.
19 Havinc a acod code is essential to your work.
20 50 20USTON.
Yec.
21 a 9.. STF:
You a re leadinc to the quertion I was 22 coin g to ask anyway.
In going t! rough all of thic, undoubtedly you have 23 24 found many placcac, in developing your uncertaintiac, where wot.ing en thinas that they did net have quite h
25 peo;1e were ALDERSoN PEPoRTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
242 1 enouch in f o r m a ti c n yat fer you to upgrade th in g s.
Did you 2 find any areas that poople vera no t werking en yet, and you 3 wished that they were?
4 ve.
TUSTON:
Yes.
For myself, think I could 5 say, yes, in tho following vein.
I would like te be able to 6 use probably a better econcnic nodel -- It is not so much 7 the econcaic model as it is a means of doinc ccmputations 8 that would provide a better picture and representation of 9 the contamina tion possibilities f rom the accident than ve 10 ar e now able to get from the c;AC cede.
11 This would nean, perhaps, somewhat more detailed 12 inf e rmation on land use characteristics, crop 13 ch ar act eri sticr, etc., on a core recionalized basic around 14 plants. as compared to the statewide basis that we now 15 have.
To the bast of my knowledge, nobody is new working on 16 this.
17 Jould you have any thing tc add, Ca rbe s ?
18 1F. SA?BEC:
Tho CFAC code wir discussed 19 apparently in detail, and th e one thing that we notice is 20 lacking in the CF.AC ccde is that the chronic pathways are 21 not properly rodeled so as to provide a table for the type 22 of work for which we are usinc that.
23 I understand fren the research that to improve the 24 chronic pathways it is kind of c bic project for the CRAC 25 code bcth timovise and nonnyviro.
'i h 3 t ar implyino is ALDERSoN REPo~tTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
233 1 that I wicn we could do comething for that.
2 M9. MnUSION:
Th e re is ancthcr response to your 3 quection tha t occurs to me.
It ir very hard to know how 4 much imrortanca or how mucn effort would be warran+ed in 5 this to incorporate the lie;uid pathway concidorations in a 6 more compatible way with the m e th od olog y.
7
". R. LAWEOSKI.
When you said that, one of the 8 areas where the in f o rma tion is inadequa te is with recard to 9 land values.
It saems to me that the problem thero is that 10 th er e is so much specificity with respect to the site that I 11 don't know that chort of dcing a num ber of studies that 12 would encompass all the potential sites -- Until you did 13 th a t, would you have something raally ucef ul ?
14 Land values calculated to fit some thing in South 15 Ca rolin a would not fit something in the San Joaquir Valley.
16 M?. UCUSTON:
I quors what I meant was that !
17 would be able to reprecent im pac t on a more cite cpecific 18 basis if we were able to do it within a 50 mile rance.
The 19 CRPC code is a rather cearse grid, so to Ereak, for those 20 roprecent aticnn.
21
- E.
LAWROSK!:
I was not thinking of the C2AC 22 code.
I was gcing back to the answer ycu cava ir. C rth.
23 C"TH:
I was cert of wondering what pocsible 24 deficienciec.
I don't know what all gces in the cresent 25 cod e, but thero could be a 'reakdoin which doec not exirt ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. 3.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 1702) 554 2345
24u 1 now.
aybe it icec exist, and I don 't know.
If there were v
2 a break down in terar of land uce, devote, to acricultural, 3 pur917 cropr or crors and 4,11r y, or a rance.
4 In thit the kind of thinc that would to useful, if 5 yru noved to site srecific ycu could pl u r, in and say, okay, 6 this area hera is 40 percent used for this, and 20 percent 7 f o r tha t, and this is what it tells ne the overall results 8 will bo?
9 MP. 'GUSTON:
Picht now the cons 9quence model does to dictincuish batveen dairy and non-dairy and non-dairy 11 agricultural.
12 MR. SAEEEE:
Curr=ntly the urable land fer each 13 state is how nuch of the land ic used for the crop, and what 14 fraction of the bottom land is used for dairy, and what is 15 the cost per acre to produce, includino dairy, is 16 inco rpora ted in tha code on a state by state baris.
17
'io w you value the property, other than the farm, 18 is on the basic of the number of people for any elonEnt that 19 is processed.
?or example, how much a park is ccsociated 20 per perron.
i' o w r. u c h residential, and how r.uch cor.nercial 21 value is rtrictly in proportion to the population.
Better 22 work can be done in that area.
23 ME.
G E11E 0 :
Herb, do you have a cuestion.
24
'E.
? 3 PE E 7. :
It is a rather minor connent on this 25 point of 13*erert hare.
Th>re will always be oxceptions, no ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 4C0 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
245 1 ma tter now we elaborate on thic.
You let this stuff cut 2 over the Lampart tilley, whicP is the nation's largest 3 agt1 cultural valley, it ic will be astronomical cc pared to 4 anything that would be res cona ble an ywhere else.
I don't 5 think that you want to de tae work co that you wculd 6 aJtematically take that in.
7
"?.
lAWSOSK!:
The restoration cost of comething 8 11%e e truc'< farm would be quite different if it were truck 9 f a rnino in southeactern Fcnncylvania versus in d rigated 10 a r ea s like San Joaquim.
11 ME. r0STSE:
In the came regard, you understand 12 that the main deficiency here ic relater to the economic 13 cost or clean up ac contrasted with dose.
14
- 53. EGUST3N:
The deficiency in the cense to 15 repr esent it at the level uf detail that I think might be 16 desirable to make it more cite specific, yec.
That is to 17 mar.a a reprecentation of incact clocer in, which is more
~
18 accu ra te for that particular recion.
19
'CSTEE:
Eut which impact is the one which has 20 the greatest uncertainty; is it the economic ccct of clean 21 up, or ic it an impact on health effects?
22 YE. ECUFTON:
I cannot say that it is a question 23 of uncertainty as it it cerely the manner of doing the 24 consider a tian, and the detail and specificity of it.
25 don't trink it really roarc on the guection of uncertainty, ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 4.,J VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
246 1 except to the extent that one can argue that if there is an 2 excess of uncertainty any conclusion drawn f:ca it chould 3 not be 71ven very much weignt.
4 Jhat we are alco interested in, however, is what 5 ora mi~ht think of ar disclosura of information and 6 considetations so that not only the staff, but anytody who 7 reads the document ir, in principle, able to make a judcment 8 and come to conclucion wnich may or may not te the same that 9 the staff comes to precented with the rame inf crma tion.
10
'4 hen you don't prosent cufficient cita specific 11 detail in a document such at this, it would be very 12 dif ficult for anybody else to mane a judgment.
I don ' t know 13 whether tha t is an idealistic point of view or not, but that 14 1 what NEPA is all about.
15
- R.
- 0ELLEFz I wanted to ask a question, which I 16 realiza is not cimple.
Perhaps in your study, and in the 17 preparation of this environ'ontal statement, you havn 18 reached some insight in to it that ycu could sharr with us.
19
'i e often hear tho quection, or we read overy day 20 of what ic the best site, or what is the better cf two sy that you are 21 altarnativa sites, and so forth.
let'c a
22 dealing with contamination, meeting airborne contamination 23of the aret surrounding a plant, which veuld you really 24 prefer, an agricultural area, a dairy area, agricultural 25 croce, vegetab3c crops, or inductrial, er resi?.cntial?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C ^?Q24 (202) 554-2345
247-245 1
I knew that each will have advar Ices and 2 disa d v a n t age s, but I am not clear in my own mind what are 3 the advantages and disadvantanes.
Could yo-juct cive ne a 4 thum b nail s.v.e tch of what is wrong and what might be right?
5 "E.
M7ER:
ihat about sone pinewcodc?
6
'?.
',ELLZF.
Ycu have raised the irrigated coil 7 versus the eastern soil; which do we prefer, what are your 8 thouchts on that?
9 "R.
HOUSTON:
The only answer I feel I could give 10 to that is af ter the f ew miles a round th e pl an t, I don't 11 think it makes any diffarence.
This would be my #irst 12 judgnent.
It may be important if you have it closer to the 13 pla n t than a fnw miles.
Eeyond that I doubt if you can 14 rationalize differencec in haracteristics, inductrial 15 ve rsus a cricultural, or wh a t-h a ve-yo':.
16 You can argun until you are bluo in the face, and 17 do calculations until you cre blae in the f a ce, and show 18 th at some impacts might be a little greater than some 19 ot he rs, but there will always be judctental values that you 20 cann ot rodure to rort comparisons.
They would be merely a 21 mattar of judgnent.
22 23 24 25 ALD:.RSON REPORTING COMPANY, 'NC, 400 v.RGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
zuo 1
Cenine ncy to tho section on accident risk and 2 impact assessannt.
There sre really two principal parts to 3 this section, which rouchl; speakinc are divided into design 4 hasis accidentr on the one hand 'nd, on the other hand, 5 accidente beyond the design baris, or class 9.
6 Jith respect to design bacis accidentc, what we 7 have done is to take the safety evaluation classification 8 scheme, rather than the one to nine scheme, and indicate to 9 th e reader of the statement some of the more severe 10 consequences of design hasic accidents that have been 11 considered in the safety ev.'luation, and have been evaluated 12 in tarms of their consequences.
13 These are, of cource, all portulated accidents.
14 They are civen judgmental characterization ac to the 15 likelihood or frequency of eccurrence, basically, in two 16 ca tegorie r.
The first beine those that mich t reasonably be 17 expocted to occur a*
least onc9 durino the lifetime of a 18 pl a n t; and a second catecory which you don 't really expect 19 to occur, but they have been concidered as poscille 20 po st ul ate d accicen ts.
21 Wa give some results of the dose calculationc that 22 a r e really very similar to the type of calculationc, the 23 results of which have been prosent in uur past environmental 24 impact statement, presented in a slichtly different format, 25 giv9n teth whola-body and +hyroid.
These are just ALDERSON N. PORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
250 1 individual expccure numbers, and they are done on a 2 so-called roa3'ctic tacic.
3 In the concluding part of this section, althouch 4 we don't present it in a tabular form, we do present in the 5 text an indication of what population oxpecures ?.ight he in 6 person-rem fror. design basis accidents.
He also 7 characterice in a general cay th e results of +he staff's 8 calc ult.4. cns of these sane initiating events, but under 9 circunstances where the assurption is made that certain 10 encineered safaty features, other than the containment 11 System, do not function as designed.
12 These era represented as or civen as an indication 13 of what we consider to be sort of the boundine, or upper 14 tounds of individual exrosures that conceivabl: could te 15 experienced frc-accidents that fall within the range of 16 design basis accidents.
17
E. KERE:
As I read the paragraph on page 6-11, 18 which I think is det_ing with what you are talkinc about, 19 although I am not cure, which refer to "The staff carriod 20 out calculations in connection with 10 CE? 100."
You make 21 the statement, "Tha =Gsumptions incl'Jde larger amounts of 22 material released by initiating events," the implication is 23 that one gets these does by following a sequence or a 24 scenarit of conn kind to finally produce the sc :rce tern.
25 I'
seems to
.e tbr t tais is somewhat misleading as ALDERT.,0N REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGWI A AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
251 1 I understand P 3. r t 100.
Source term, it seems to ma, is a 2 completely arbitrary ccurco term, nct dependinc on any 3 mechanictic series of eventc.
I don't necarsarily dicagree 4 with thic p'ra rapi., except that one could interprot this tc 5 mean that thera has been analyzed a scenario that would 6 Start with initiating ev en ta, and would finally prcduce the source te rm under Part 100, and that in just not the care, 8 at least as T understand Part 100.
9 I am cpeakinc of the cource te rn it. t a rt 100, and 10 th e source ter-th e re d id not resu2t from any rcenario --
11 1R. *iGUSTC h :
Part
.00 in itself did not include a 12 source term.
13 3R. ??RR:
It does if you refer to th. fcotncte, 14 and I scaume the t the footnote is part of the reculatien.
15 MR. EQUSTON:
Thic ray be a mischaracteri2Ption of 16 large-break LCCA where, although it is not steted, one 17 cannet of cource get a cource term that is near approachina 18 the co-called TIO cource term without hsving eccentially 19, complete failure cf the cCCE systen.
20 These are the rerultc that you see on this table 21 for the larce-break LCCA.
These are the only ones that coma 22 from that particular cource term.
23 "P.
.<TRE:
This is a part about which I ha ve roma 24 ouestion, the i.m pli ca ti c a cf tha t and the implication of 25 thic paracraph ir that if you have a largo-break LCC1, ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202; 554 2345
252 1 cometody had walked thrcugn a scenario that will produce a 2 sourca term tha* is associated with Part 100, and this had 3 not been done.
The scurce tern in Fart 100 ir an arbit.rary 4 source t e rm.
5 I don 't object to the use of that tarn, but it 6 seems to me that it is misleading to imply that there has 7 been a study thit beqan with an initiating e van t and 8 followinc through a scenario that produced that scurce 9 te r.9.
10 M..
"0 L'S T O N :
Your point is well taken.
For that 11 one line in thic table, th e statement in the text would be 12 misleading.
For the cthers it.ould not be to miclesding.
13 "P.
VrER I agree.
Again, I am not being 14 critical becauce : accune it ic being studied.
15
?. :iO USTO N :
The concluding part of this section, 16 design tacic accidents, does make particular reference to 17 the fact thst cne of the key assumptions tha t is made wi th 18 respect to what is cometimes referred to as tha Enveleco of 19 design basis accidentc, tne onvelopa of their consequences 20 does embody the assumption that the containment system 21 functions as derigned, or to uce the words in Part 100, that 22 the leakage fro-containment, at least from those accident:
23 tha t ha ve material releases, the leakage rate is at a rate 24 which 17 te s ta ble, vnich the ctaff has alwayc taken ss the 25 so-callad tech crec rat +.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
253 1
When one considerc accidents in which the 2 containcnent can fail, or may not properly isolate, 3 depending on the circumctances, we et i:. t c the so-called 4 clars ? range.
Here we deal with the subject in a 5 probabilistic fashicn, and the nethodology used is not 6 surprisingly that of th e Reacter Safety S tud y.
7 Th e dominan t impacts or consequences would be 8 expected to come from releases to the a tmosphe re.
We haVe 9 used the same release categorier that are presented in the 10 Reactor Safety Etudy.
11 The Fummer plant, bein g a pressurized water 12 reactor of Westinghouce design, it is raths similar to the 13 prototype plant of th e Feactor lafety Study.
So we have 14 used the same FWF for nine categories.
Each of these 15 categories has a probability of occurrence arrociated with 16 it that comes out Of WA?H-lu00.
17 Jne difference that I might point cut tc you, if 18 you would try to compare the table in this secticn on 19 pr ob a bili ty with that that appears in WASH-14CC, you would 20 find some differences, the key reason beinc that the tables
^1 in WASH-1400 uced the s moo t h ina operstion where they borrowed fron these catagories 10 percent en each side.
The 22 23 numbers that we have used here did not use that cmcothing 24 technicues, but thny were computed for each catecory of tha 25 ovent sequence.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
254
'! R..< I F E :
Did you une a different technique 2 tecausa of the difficulties acrociated with secothing, or 3 becauc> at thic stace of your thinking.ou believe that it 4 is not a cc :d wsy of doing it?
5
R. "OUSTON:
Tho thinkin; has been that there ir 6 not adequate justification for the cmocthing technicue.
It 7 was a comewhat arbitrary decision to simply not uce it, to 8 go tehind tha t and use the tacic event sequence 9 pr o b a bili tie s.
10 MR. KERR:
Thank you.
11
'i 9. ?OUSTON:
There ts a reference to and a brief 12 description of the consequence model, which bacically ic the 13 CR AC code, which we used in th e Eeacter Safety 7tudy, and O
14 used however in such a fashion as to make it specific to 15 this particular site.
16 Ahat thic meant was the uce of certain cite 17 specific envirenmental parameters, which included the 18 me teorolcoy associated with this pa rticula r cita, using a 19 year's worth of data, the population crecific to the Sunner 20 facility, information on the land cections in "outh Carolina 21 and neichbo;inc states, and land use information.
These are 22 all site cpecitic in the sonce of beinc specific to the 23 State of South Carolina.
The measured distance is fror the 24 Summer facility.
25 The concequence er CFt.C code calculatienc that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
255 1 have been p e r f o r r.e d for the site, we have made far more 2 calculation' than are represented in the dccument tc 3 actually rerroduce all of the cenditions, and inscribe all 4 the calculations as the CEAC code does.
5 le kind of picked and chose as to how te simplify 6 and represent the resul+.s of these calculations.
It is 7 certainly is in this area th a t we a re croping to find the 8 best way to represent, without getting too much detail, the 9 best results of the calculations.
10 To de this, we have represented the dose impact 11 and health impacts that are shown in certain figures and 12 summarized in the table We have also, for the econostc 13 p a r t of the CEi,C code, a consecuence medel which simply 14 represented the cwtput of that in terms of the economic 15 costs, the dollar costs associated with accidents.
These 16 are shown on various fiiures.
17 MP. KrER:
Let te ask a question.
In describing 18 the class 9 accident, the statorent 13 made on page 6-12, 19 near the top of the page, that characts:riring a class 9 20 accidents is the fact that they involve substantial physical 21 de te riora tion of the fuel in th e reactor core and 22 deterioration :f the capability of the containnent structure 23 te perform its intended function.
24 I
P"cgnize that the definition of a claes 9 25 accident probably is not tcc irportant, but is it the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
256 1 implication here that in order to have a clarc 9 you have to 2 have both of these cicultanscucly?
3
- 59. HCUSTCT:
That ir a acod quection.
Th ic ic 4 cart of intendad hore.
I am not cure that One could get a
- complete concensus.
6 MP. V EF R :
I just wondered what the thrust of the 7 statement here was.
8 Then in the middle of page 6-13, roughly the 9 middle, in the paragraph thi rd from the tcp, there is a 10 statement that the a tmoccheric a nd health effectc part of 11 the model are treated p rob a bilis tically and are baced upon 12 observed sta tistical di stri b u tio n s.
13 T c u.e s s what is maant is that one has 14 meteorological data, but I am not sure what the implication 15 of the "obsarved sta tistical distribution" of the model 16 means.
Ic that what is meant?
17 MR. FOUSTCN:
It is a micctatement, you are 18 right.
The data used in the model, by repetitive 19 calcula tion prcd uc e s distributions.
Eut it ir just the data 20 that is used in the model.
It is not a probability 21 distribution, that is correct.
22 MF. KEPR:
Thank you.
23 YR. HOUSTON:
Thic particular table shows the 24 release categories on *he left :nder
'd / 5 F - 1 u C O.
The 25 probabilities alluded to are the so-called non-cmcoth ones.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRG;NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
o c ~r 1 Then the fractions of ccre inventory releases wrich are 2 cnaractoristic of each of th ese release categories.
It is 3 sonewhat simplified from tha table that appears in 4 WA3F-1400.
5
2. LANEOSXI:
Does this include considera tien of 6 accidents that T. i c h t re sul t from seismic events?
I think on 7 various occasions it has been peinted out that 'i A SH-14 0 0, I
8 believe I am correct in stating this, did not adequately 9 address that question.
10 M3. "CUSTON:
I am not sure that I can raally 11 answer that gunstion.
Ut Sarbes, can you answer that?
13 MF. CAREFS:
! don't think the probabilities that 14 ware given in tha W.SH-1400 did include the contribution 15 f rom th e seismic events.
16 YP. LAWRCEKI:
They did not?
17
9. CARBEC:
They did not.
18
- v. E.
- t. R S :
I woulc say, if I understand it, that 19 thoy include contributions only in the senso that if one 20 assu mes that the biggest e a r thqu ak e that can occur, a 21 shutdown earthquake, and tnen one assume that the desiens 22 have been done proporly, thore is an allowance in ? ASH-1400 23 for proce r desicn.
In that sense one can say that 24 earthquakes are considered, but as has been peinted out 25 there is nc consideration of the probability cf an ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
252 1 earthquake larger than the s hutd own earthquake and there are 2 como peoplo who think that this might contribut?
3 significantly.
4
'R.
LAWPCSKI:
Tnat is what I was wondaring.
5
- F.
"USTON:
Cno of the figures that va cresent 6 is the aspect of impact in terms of individual deses to 7 people, again as a comolem en ta r y, cumulative distribution 8 function, although we have tried to avoid that term in this 9 particula r sta tement, and simply referred to it as the 10 proba bility distribution.
11 ME. LAWRCSKI:
Pould you refresh my recollection 12 of the :eismic design of the Fummer pl?nt?
13 MR. HOUSTON:
I cannot tell you that.
That ic not part of the study.
15 MP. HOUSTON:
Th2re ir no seismic question at 16 Summer.
17
- E.
LAWROSKI:
How far is it from Ch a rle s ton ?
18 M9. "vCSTON:
Abcut 100 miles.
It is about 2 'l 19 milos northsest of Columbia, and it is about 100 =iles from 29 Ch a r le s to n.
21 In this pa rticula r figure, we have elocted to show 22 three dif ferent curves, two of which represent tho 25-rem 23 whole-bod y a nd 300-rem thyroid numbers that are Fart 100 24 quidelino numbers because they mic t b? of interest.
The 25 third one reprosentinc the w h o le -b od y dose of 200 rem er ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
259 kh 1 7reater, which is the level at which one can expect acute 2 injuries and some acute fatalities.
3 Th e next figure r+ presents p0pulation done.
The 4 results ara calculated again as probability distributions.
5 Here one can see the di f f e r^n ce in tne computation between 6 the effect where the impact is extended to 50 miles, and 7 then extended beyond to include in effect the entire United 8 States.
9 This is a characteristic which is part of the 10 CR AC code and part of the consequence.odel by reason of the 11 fact that the health effects model employed ic a 12 non-threshold.
So in effect it attempts to account for the 13 disposition of all the radicactive material that is 14 released, no T.atter how far it coes in making a contribution 15 to a population dose.
16 MR. ORTH:
W c uld that graph icok markc.dly 17 di f f eren t is that plant were on th e Wect Ccast rather than 18 the East Coact?
19 dE-
'UUEIUh Yec.
The next one that we are doinc 20 is on the Jast Coast, San Cncfre II and III.
McVe you seen 21 the curves for that, I havon't yat.
22 MR. 5AEBEE:
Yes, I have seen the graph.
It is 23 no t so much like this one here.
In the case of San Onofree, 24 the two praphs are reparat'a frca one another.
25 "o.
.O US TC 'i s Ue alcc rhow a figure representing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
260 1 the output of the CEAC code on probability of distribution 2 of 2 cute fatalities cccurrina.
We see on the orcinate scale 3 protabilitias of several times to the minus ' coinc down to 4 below 10 to the minus E, anc acute fatalities on the order 5 of 60,000 at the lowest probability level.
6 Similarly for latent cancer fatalitios, we show 7 results here.
This is the cistribution.
You will notice 8 one dif f erence between this figure and some of the others.
9 In this case, the horizontal scale is en a per year basic, 10 and it is the number of latant cancers per yea r which can 11 extend over a period of 30 years followinc exposure.
12 These are summarized in a table.
Eone peo ple lik e 13 to look at ficures, and others like to look at tables, so we 14 pick ed of f some numbers in this particular case in addition 15 to what is shown in the figure.
16 We show in the second column from the richt-hand 17 si <i e the cancers actually multiplied by 30 to get tha nunber 18 of latent cancers and to indicate in a footnote that the 19 gene tic ef f ects of these pcpulation expccures wculd be 20 approxin:t tely twice the nunter of latent cancers.
Those 21 effects, cf course, appearing over rany generations, perhaps 22 five or 10.
'!hy was this cut off at 20 years?
23
F.. FAFKFF.
24 Th e people that we talfed to y c. s te rd a y were leanina toward 25 accepting a lifetime increase of cancer risk after exposure.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTcN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
251 SCUSTON.
I an not really axpert in that 1
2 field, but it scems to me tnat from the point of view of the 3 consequence calculstions, if you use tha t postulation then 4 you have to know the age 11ctribution of the population you 5 are talking abcut, and I don't think we would cet much 6 difference in the numbers.
7
'R.
PARKE3:
It is a factor of two, which is 8 probably not inportant.
Ycu would not want to sien your 9 name to these beinc reliable tc a factor of two.
10
'E.
HOUSTON:
You have to have the age 11 di st rib u tion of the population that is expored, and alco th e 12 lifo expectancy of those people.
It would make it a much 13 co mplica ted ca lcula tion.
14
- B.
SAR3TS:
Jhat has been done ir that the total 15 risk was first divided by a factor of 30 to give an annual 16 ra ta, acsuming
- hat the population is 30, one would assume 17 that the number of instances would stretch over the 18 lifetime.
19 In that cace, the annual rate by dividino the 20 pr ob a bili tie s by 30, the total will be the sare in either 21 cace.
Jhat I.ean to say ic that there were 135 latent 22 cancer per million man-rem when tne expoced population was 23 assumed.
The annual ra te of cancers after the period of 24 latency, we divided the number up by 30, which wac assumed 25 to te th e 30-year neriod.
- f the period var a r s '2 m e d to be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
262 1 more than 3C, than the annual rate would be the total 2 diviied by the came curve.
3 YR.
- ?FR:
!t seats to me that this ic not tha 4 answer to tne question you have asked.
I thoucht that you 5 were ackire what one d;d to get the total number of 6 f a talitier. anc not what one did with the nurber after one 7 got.
8 MR. PAFKER:
'! c, it is a satisfactory ancwor to ?.y 9 quection.
I a pprecia te the explanation.
It all scrks out 10 in the end, cince wo dcn't know the ancwer.
11 MR. '?] U STO N :
I guecs I misunderstcod th e way it 12 is actually calculated.
13
"?.
KEFRs On your economic impact, I guess that 14 is what you are coming to, what part of that is arscciated 15 wi th the cost of d? con tamina ticn of the property?
What did 16 you use as a lower 3 evel o f where you ctopped being 17 con tan' na ted.
What was the basis for a recidual level, if 18 you will?
19
'F.
EAF.PEZ:
!! the contamination by a factor of a 20 ma ximum of 4 0, you bring down the level so that the 21 individual exposure of the decontaminants doec not exceed 22 the accident guidelinec levelc in as in WACH-1400, then the 23 decontamination '.ac considered possible.
24 "E.
ECUSTON:
Thic particular ficures triec to 25 give the ancwerc in terms cf the dollar coctc.
We cet a ALDEFSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 202) 554-2345 i
263 1 prohtability dictribution chowing the impact of the economic 2 costs may run te miny billions of d olla rc, but the 3 pr o b a bili ty level 3 re en the order of cne tc 100 million o r 4 lecc.
5 1 may have ta ken t here out of th e ceauence that 6 you havo ther in the report, but ! have also concidered them 7 comewhat independently cf ecmputations made by
'4 A F F-14 0 0 8 methodology, the consideration of possible releacar through 9 the groundwster.
10 Here the basic approach was to make a compa ricon 11 to the previoucly published licuid pa th wa y generic study 12 that had been done in connection with the floating nuclear 13 plant case, and the impact on drinking water, irrigation and 14 aqua tic uses have been concidered and teccribed.
15 Basically the conclucion there ir that the impactc 16 are conciderably lasc for groundwater pathways than they 17 would be for atmospheric pathwayc.
18 In addition to the re;resentation of the a calculations an probability dictributicns, we teve also 20 in co rpo ra te d a section on rick conciderations where we point 21 out that a conynni?nt way of sunmaricina these probability 22 distributions in terms of rick is to, in effect, integrate 23 undar the curve to cet a single representation of risk, 24 which are axpressed in the expectation of cc
- r. a n y 25 concectences per yaa r on annualiced bacis, but pcintinc cut ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
264 1 that not everyiody would acree or perceive that ac an 2 adequate mescure of risk.
3 Thare is a concept of rick aversion, althou;b I 4 don't think we have used t ha t term in the statement.
- t is 5 alludinc to the fact that come reople would cerceive this 6 treatment of probability of consequances ac not an 7 appr opria te way for very high consequences of low 8 probability events.
9
.Tevertheless, we do present come of the numbers to that are calculated in terr.s of come of th e health effects 11 of expocures.
In additional, we alco put here, because we 12 don't havo the information ac probability distribution 13 information that seemed to ba relevant to the impact 14 statement, additional economic ricxs acsociated with the 15 plant itself.
16 Tha econocic model in the consequence rodel of the 17 CRAC code deal only with economic concequence s of f-site.
18 Here va dealt vary bricfly with the potential aconcmic risk 19 of contaminating the plant, such as Three "ile Island, and 20 dealinc with tha cost of rerlacement power which one has to plant is put out of commission by reacon of an 21 endur9 when a
accident.
72 23
.' e also, of courcs, diccurs to come extent the 24 uncertainties in the probabilistic calculatienc, but do 25 poin t out that fro-the 'U.CP-1409 study the exrecta tion of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, ANC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
265 1 cccurrence of the Three ':il a Icland accident ic not at all 2 surprising.
The likelihcod of an cccurrence of that type of 3 accident in four reactor y=Trc is about the length of 4 experience it the time that the accident cccurred was well 5 within the expectatienc cnd predictionc of WACH-1400.
6
.' ?.. VEEPs I have had comewhat of a let down.
7 thought that I was coing to see an exprescion of 8 uncertainties.
I could make a cuqqestion to chorten that
"*'e know that there are 9 section quite a lot.
It would say, n
10 uncer tain' Lec, and thic was pointed out by the lewic 11 Co m mit tee Eeport.
We don't yet kno' what to do about it."
12 It seems to mo that this sort of what this cection says.
13 I am not ceing critical, but we ctill don 't have 14 an estinate of what the uncertainties are.
This I think is 15 not your responcibility.
16 M9
'JC U ST G N :
I think that it will be a long time 17 before we have arch of a handle on that.
! agree that there 18 a r e too many words in that section.
Nobody agrees as to how 19 that should be treated, and that is all I can cay.
'" 7 E7:Rs Nobody made ruggestions about orders of 20 21 magnitude, and wha t we are talking about.
There is nothing 22 reaconable that you could ray about tha uncertainties at 23 thic point.
24
"?.
HOUSTON:
There are come werdc in there, not 25 in that particular cection, I tPink.
I h ve fergotten where ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
266 1 th e; are.
2 1R. Y 09:
Can you toll me whore they aro, not 3 richt nca, but later.
4
P. iiOUCION:
There are two thin"c vo sa/.
One is 5 with racpect to the pretatilities, the unccrtainties are 6 concideratl? and the c'.aff had no particular reacon to 7 believe that they are either high or l' w.
8 With respect to
- .e consequences calculations, 9 there are considerable uncertainties, but it is a staff 10 judenent tha t if any'hing they are probably overectimated 11 rather than underestimated.
We have made that kind of 12 statement in there.
13
E. KZER:
That I saw.
14 S.
0 U S T O N :
Tha other thina that we have said 15 that the uncertainties could be as much as a facter of 10, 10 tot are not likely to be off by ?.o re t h a :- a facter cf 100.
17 MR. KEEP:
Th=.t I did not cee.
18
'd o. FOU3 TON:
I thin'< that ir in there.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Al.,ERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
267 1
"F.
' t W 9 C i' S K I :
"cw that you have ctarted to do 2 this what do you hear from cur your counterps.rts outside the 3 United itates?
4
- . "CUSTON:
Not a'thina yet.
%e have talked to CEC pocple on it but tnat ic not the c a.S e th in :.
6 (Lauchter.)
7 I am not sura.
8
'E.
LtkEC'WEXI:
You tantioned tha dense po pula tion.
9
'F.
" ? U S T C 5' s Obvicurly they are very concerne-10 about vnat ic goin, on in torre of citinc criteria.
I am 11 not really clear to what extent in o th er countrier they have 12 requirements that could ba comparahle tc our NEFA 13 re q u i rer.en ts.
'y guecs would be that in many or 90ct 14 countrios they will have this and they may nc" understand 15 just what it ic that we arc trying to do w it h
.T. P A.
I a'
16 n o t sur? that this would receive a lot of attentien in 17 foreign ecuatries tut I ro a 2 7.y dcn't know.
18 "E*
L'2?C25KI8
" 11, ! thoucht when rituations iii
- occurred concern war iiven ta this, in particular 19 C Luc uropa.
I haven't heard anythinc further 20 come countriec in r 21 and wac askinc if you had.
22
'i 9. HOUSTCN:
No, we have not.
23 MB. "nELLEF:
Will ch e peepic responsilla for 24 emergency planning, cay in F 2:' A as wall as ir ': 9. C, taka ycur 25 report and analyr? it for any incichts acain er lescons to ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
263 1 be learned?
2 "E.
i:OUSTC N :
I ioubt it.
3
- 13. *" rile?s What then did yc u find, and you used 4 to be and mayba you still are heavily in onercency plannino, 5 what did you l -a rn from thic study that might be uceful to 6 thoso who ara responsible in the field Of er.ergency 7 preparedness?
8 M9 "CUSTCN:
I am not sure that there is anything 9 th a t is crecifically in this document that I would argue 10 very stronaly sculd be of direct uco in that area, with one 11 exce ption.
I would 'think it could be a unaf ul backcround 12 document for emergency rreparednecs personnel, not in the 13 Federal Governr.ent althcuch maybe it would ha helpful for 14 sone people in FEMA, and I should say not in the NEC, but 15 porcibly in FE:
but more particularly thone state and local 16 people tnat have accociated r e s p o n ci bi.'. i ti e s wi th the ri te.
17 It mi ht help then understand the nature of the problem they 18 a r e dealina with and it mignt have that benefit.
19 Incofar as ccecifice in ternc of planninc, I lon't 20 think there is anything in hers that would be vary useful to 21 it and it has not been structured for that purpose.
22 1?. I'UROWSK!:
What about the quastion of where 23 your probabilities are?
You could even create a croblem 24 when you have to addrecc the quection Of rabotage.
M COUETON:
I L'
not cure I understand what the 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) b54 2345
269 1 quection is but catotage is not an explicit concideration.
2
- R.
lAWRCWSKI:
That could al 9r the p ro ba bili ti o r 3 to conethinq different.
'C h e concequences may to t.' s same 4 for 3 givon circ-of accident but the probabilities no icnge r 5 follow.
They tre indeterninate really.
6 Y9. iiC U STC N :
Ycu are rorrect that there is no 7 doub t that one can device cabotage ccenaries te produce any 8 of the release catngories.
9
R. LAW 3DLEKI:
You would rather not discuss this.
,o
'9.
HOUSTON:
No, teca uce I have no incice 11 knowledge any more en thic cubject.
In principle this is 12 poss ible.
The real p robler there ic e criori ectinates of 13 the lik=11 hood of occurrenco of such eventq.
That is a very 14 difficult one.
15 T think the precent judonont is that they are not 16 cuf ficien tly 11?.ely to influence thesa thingc.
17
- E. l A W R O '4 E h'I
I ar not speaking fron tha outside 1g but the inside cateteur.
M 50USTO'l:
Isn*+. that the came protlon as we 19 20 have '< i t h dealing with the whole question of human error and 21 the complenent to human error and that is human intervention 22 in a cituation which if he doecn't int'rvene it beconec nuch 23 worse and we don't know how to d eal with there 24 probabilictically.
15
?'WFCWF7I:
I think where it is human error we 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2G 1 can make certain ectimates on it.
2 ME. 20CSTCN:
Peocle havo done it, yes.
3
'R.
L A W R O L'S K I :
They may not be very goed 4 estinates, *ut this oth er, as I say, ic something that is 5 entirely different.
6 MR. '5ELLEF:
An3 ather questionc?
7
- Yes,
'4 e r b Parker.
8 ME. PAQFEE:
Let me explain one reason why our 9 speaker correctly feels that it doesn't very much matter 10 where one of those takes place in the
'J ni ted S ta tes.
That 11 is on acccunt of Parkincon's Law No. 3 which, ac ycu 12 remerber, reads that land adversely affected by a nuclear 13 reactor immedia tely rises to the maxinur credible value of 14 la n d in the United States.
15 (Lau2hter.)
'uUSTC5:
Very acod.
16 1R.
17 MR. "3ELLEF.
Any other questions or comments?
18 M3. L A '4F 0 W SK I :
!: dcesn't even have to involve an 19 accident, just declare that is whern ycu are oing to have a 20 testing station.
21 (Lauchter.)
22 MR. i.0 EL L EE :
k'e ll, le t me close out then the 23 meetinc on th e review of the d ra f t environnental ctatement urmer Plant and thank Dr. Houston for cocin; down 24 on tha c 25 and cpendin1 hic Ssturday nerning with us.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
271 1
ME. 'ic U S T O N :
Thank you.
2
'E.
LAWFCWEKI:
His opening remarks almort tested 3 his credibility.
4 (Lauchter.)
5
- 12. 'iO ELL E E :
The r.eeting ir adjourned.
6 (Whereucon, at 11: 55a.m., the cubcomrittee 7 adjourned.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~.
NUr-"~AR EGUIX'ORY CO.WCSS~CN
-a
... <. ~.,..u.
... 3
=... e..,s
..,, w,, s..,
u.,.,...,
. u..,
s
.w
...c 3
u 10 O h s ". 3 C 0 0 :* O f: JOINT MEETING OF THE SUBCOMf!ITTEE ON REATOR RADIOLOG EFFECTS AND THE REACTOR RItDIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SITE EVALUATION
- C ate O f. :"Oc eeCi".g :
December 13, 1980 Cccket Nu=ber:
.. C C.4 Washington, D.
C.
- 21. a. c,. w -
.e
- a.e a.
u.. g.i. 4 s.<.
u.. a..n a.
s
.m.qgyg,
.=.e. s - u..s...,. a < < e.
. ~.,
4 g. 19 1.
<w--
.4 43r
. u..
.4 O-. u.. c.
.4..,..,.4.
.- i Patricia A.
flinson (9 4".4* 3 J..g T
..4...,p.
[ *.. ep 1
]n
.J we
.w y.
.w.
WE Yx t b
U f>>
A C s a. < >
.,n
< v. g.
g.
..4.w.
4.
0 6
h a
G NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the JOINT MEETINF OF THE SUBCOfBIITTEE ON REACTOR RADIOLOGIC; in the :satter of:
EFFECTS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SITE EVALUATION
~
Date of Procaeding:
December 13, 1980 Docket tiu:sber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C were held as herein appears, and. that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Cor:::siss:.on.,
M.
E.
Hansen Official Reporter (Typed) kr. Nawn Official Reporter (Signature) t
,w=
. a, TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 6.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS E.1.1 UENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCIDENTS 6.1.2 ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVED IMPACTS 6.1.3 MITIGATION OF ACCIDENT CONSEQUENCES 6.1.4 ACCIDENT RI5K AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1.5 CONCtuSIONS
\\
i 6.1.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCIDENTS 6.1.1.1 FISSION PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS IN-PLANT SOURCE LOCATIO:4S
~
CORE INVENTORY SPENT FUEL PRIMARY COOLANT WASTE HANDLING SYSTEMS FISSION PRODUCT PROPERTlES RELATIVE VOLATILITIES RADI0 ACTIVE DECAY 5.1.1.2 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS COMPARISON To NORMAL OPERATIONAL RELEASES ADDITIONAL LIQUID PATHWAYS DISPERSION DURING IRANSPORT G
g 6.1.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCIDENTS (CONT'D.)
6.1.1.3 HEALTH EFFECTS HIGH DOSES - FATAL INJURIES L0w DOSES - CANCER RISK 6.1.1.4 HEALTH EFFECTS Av0! DANCE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL IMPACTS h
3
6.1.2 ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVED IMPACTS LICENSED power REACTOR EXPERIENCE CA 500 REACTOR - YEARS
)
THREE MILE ISLAND-2 EXPERIENCE RELEASES EXPOSURES PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT ACCIDENTS AT OTHER REACTOR FACILITIES CORE.ELTING AT FERMI-1 IODINE RELEASE AT WINDSCALE O
6.1.3 MITIGATION OF ACCIDENT CONSEQUENCES 6.1.3,1 DESIGN FEATURES CONTAINMENT ECCS d
CONTAINMENT iiEAT RE,MOVAL CONTAINMENT SPRAYS FILTER SYSTE.'.S TMI-2 LESSONS LEARNED REQUIREMENTS O
5
6.1.3 MITIGATION OF ACCIDENT CONSEQUENCES (CONT'D.)
6.1.3.2 SITE FEATURES EXCLUSION AREA Low POPULATION ZONE
~
,PopuLATioNCENTERDISTANCE f
EXTERNAL HAZARDS 6.1.3.5 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMPLIANCE WITH NEW RutES
6.1.4 ACCIDENT RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1.4.1 DESIGN 3 ASIS ACCIDENTS j
SAFETY EVALUATION CLASSIFICATION SCH,EME a
I REALISTIC DOSE CALCULATIONS TABLE 6.1.4-1, INDIVIDUAL POPULATION DOSES SAFETY EVALUATION DOSE CALCULATIONS NON-DEGRADED CONTAINMENT 9
TABLE 6.1.4-1 Approximate Radiation Doses from Design Basis Accidents Dese (rem) at 1 Mile Duration Infrecuent Accidents ofReleaje Whole Body Thyroid J
Waste Gas Tank Failure
< 2 hr.
0.04 nil (1)
Small-Break LOCA hrs-days 0.02
< 0.001 (2)
Steam Generator Tube Rupture
< 2 hr.
0.04
< 0.001 Fuel Handling Accident
< 2 hr.
0.10
< 0.005 Limiting Faults Main Steam Line Break
< 2 hr.
0.0005
< 0.001 Control Rod Ejection hrs-days 0.06 0.1 Large-Break LOCA hrs-days 0.60
< 1.0 (1)
LOCA-Loss of Coolant Accident; the TMI-2 accident was one kind of a small-break LOCA.,
(2)
See NUREG-0651 (Reference 5) for descriptions of three steam generator tube rupture accidents that have occurred in the United States.
< means "less than"
6.1.4 ACCIDENT RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT (CONT'D.)
6.1.4.2 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS REACTOR SAFETY STUDY METHODOLOGY -
ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES RELEASE CATEGORIES AND PROBABILITIES TABLE 6.1.4-2 1
CONSEQUENCE MODEL SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS METEOROLOGY POPULATION HABITABLE LAND FRACTION LAND USE - STATE-WIDE BASIS 6.1.4.3 DOSE AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES NO PROTECTIVE ACTIONS ASSUMED FIGURES 6.1.4-2 THRU -5 TABLE 6.1.4-4 6.1.4.4 ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL IMPACTS FIGURE 6.1.4-6 9
T AutE 6.1.4 -2
SUMMARY
Of AIMutt'lllRIC RfLEASE CA1 G0ftlES REPRESLNilNG llYP0TllETICAL ACCIDENTS IN A PWR (a) fraction of Core Inventory Heleased 8telease Prohal>'l l i t y I
(b)
(c)
(Megory (reactor-yrI)
Xe-Kr I
Cs-Rb Te-Sh Ita-Sr Ru ia (d)
-8
-3 PWR 1 b.) 4 10 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.05 0.4 3 x 10 3
PWR 2 7 x 10 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.06 0.02 4 x 10 O
-6 3
-3 PWR 3 2.3 x 10 0.8 07 0.2 0.3 0.02 0.03 3 x 10 g
-11
-3
-3
-4 M
PWR 4 2.1 - 10 0.6 0.09 0'.04 0.03 5 x 10 3 x 10 4 x 10 Ko)
-8
-3
-3
-3
-4
-5
[_g PWR S 5 x 10 0.3 0.03 9 x 10 5 x 10 1 x 10 6 x 10 7 x 10 W
-7
-3
-4
-3
-5
-5
-5 PWR 6 6 x 10 0.3 3 x 10 8 x to I x 10 9 x 10 7 x 10 1 x 10
~
b
-b
-3
-5
-5
-5
-6
-6
-7 PWR /
4 x 10 6 x 10 4 x 10 1 x 10 2ex 10 1 x 10 I x 10 2 x 10
-5
-3
-4
-4
-6
-8 Puk 0 4 x 10 2 x 10 I x 10 5 x 10 1 x 10 I x 10 0
0
-4
-6
-7
-7
-9
-11 0
0 PWR 9 4 x 10 3 x 10 1 x 10 6 x 10.
I x 10 1 x 10 (a)
Background on the isotope groups and release mechanisats is presented in Appendix Vil, WASil-1400 (Ref.8 ).
(b) includes Hu, kh, Co, Mo, Ic.
(c) includes Y. La, Zr, Nb, Ce, Pr Nd, Np, Pu, Am. Cm.
(d) Current understanding of the phenomenon of containment failure by steaan explosion enbodied in this release category indicates that this probability should be lower than stated.
E NOTE: Please refer to Section 6.1.4.6 for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates.
6.1.4 ACCIDENT RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT (CONT'o.)
^
6.1.4.5 CONSIDERATION OF POSSIatE RELEASES TO GROUNDWATER COMPARISON TO Liouto PATHWAY 6ENERIC STUDY DRINKING WATER 1RRIGATION AQUATIC F000 CONSUMPTION SWIMMING AND SHORELINE USAGE O
ll
6.1.4 ACCIDENT RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT (CONT'D.)
6.1.4.6 RISK CONSIDERATIONS
~
RISK AS PROBABILITY TIMES CONSEQUENCES IABLE 6.1.4-5 ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC RISK DECONTAMINATION REPLACEMENT POWER 0.1.4.7 UNCERTAINTIES LEWIS COMMITTEE FINDINGS COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT TMI-2 EXPECTATION NRC ACTION PLA:4 ITEMS NOT REFLECTED p
lb
=
Ai io-3
<.n
=
Gj
~:
10 "
S m
We b
-s
+
8 10-'
- -~
y
//
\\
wm.ESCDYDOSEz25 REM mynotD DcSE 2 300 REM 2
go-7 hm.E SCDY DCSE 2 200 REM I i
[
=
s'10-a a
E i
l 1
to 10 10 10' 10 10' 2
3 5
X = NlitB T AFFECTED PERSCMS FIGGE 6.1A - 2 FRCBABILITY DISTRIBUTICNS CF [NDIVIDlW. [CSE [tPACTS
- 40TE: Please see Section 6.1.4.6 tor discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates.
I3
- ~
10-4 PCF M TION WI CONTIGLOJS U.vf.INTHE '
m 4
10 x
b 5
M g
^
\\
\\
gi 10-4 i
i PCeg_ArlC:
WITHIN j
E 8
W MILES n
E 10 I
?
C2 10-8 3
cm Ei
?
4 10 5
3 4
8 7
s 10' 10 10 10 10 10 lo X = TOTAL PAN-REM (hELE E0DY)
' FIGE 6.1.4 - 3 PRCBABIUTY DISTRIBUTICNS CF PCPLtATICN E'.easunEs NOTE: Please see Section 6.1.4.6 tor aiscussion of uncertainties in risk estimates.
I&
M m
3 g l
'0-4 x
n g
I 4
E 10 t2 i
N 5
u_
10-'
hd i
N 8
E O
10-7 T
=
E 5
h 2
l 0
_I a
t s
a 8:
10 _
=
8 3
4 5
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 '
X =.3OJTE FATALITIES FIGLFE 6.1.4 - 4 FRCEABILITY DISTRIEUTICf4 T MUTEFATALITIES
- 0TE
- Please see Section 6.1.4.5 tor discussicn of uncertainties in risk astimatas.
I 16 i
i g-4 i
3-5 WITHIN TM C0061GUCC i U. S.
a x
^.
m n
b:f 10 E
WITHIN50 MILES d
~
x
.LO-7
~
t 5
3 e
~
Ca 3
s,-P 6
i h
g-:
E y
g 6
4 105 10 2
103 10 1
10 10 X = LATENT CNER FAT /LITIES ffR Ft/R FIGE 6.1.4-5 PRCBABILITY DISTRIBUTION CF ( ATENT CNiCER FATALITI PER YEAR FCR 30 YEARS NOTE: Please see section 6.1.4.6 for discussion of uncertainties in risk astimates.
Ib
-. -.. ~
l
)
1ABLE 6.1.4-4 SUIv4ARY Of ENVIR0hi4 ENTAL IMPACTS AiiD PR0bABILillES t
Probability Persons Persons Acute Population Latent *
- 1' of impact Exposed Exposed Fatalities Exposure Cancers Cost of Offsite Per Year over 200 rem over 25 rem tiillions of man-rem 50 mf/
Hitigating Actions
$0/ml/ Total Total M1111rws nf on11 art 10
<l
<1
<1 4 0.001
<30
<.001
-4 1
10'
'I
<l
<I 0.3
<30 30
-6
[
S x 10 750 0,000 20 70/100 7,500/16,000 200
-6 10 5,000 60,000 700 150/200 15,000/22,500 1,000 s
-7 10 20,000 150,000 0,000 200/300 27,000/33,000 2,000 4
b h
10-8 200,000 60,000 3,000 i'
9 Related Figure 6.1.4-2 6.1.4-2 6.1.4-4 6.1.4-3 6.1.4-5 6.1.4-6 ers sNo0n.tective actions would reduce the radiological No protective actions are asstaned except for cofons of the numbonabi t imp cts. Hea ro exposures and acute fatalftles to small fract
.
- Genetic effects would be approximately twice the number of latent cancers. Thirty times the values shown in the 2
Figure 6.1.4-5 are shown in this column retlecting tne tnirty year period over which they might occur.,
NOTE: Please refer to Section 6.1.4.6 for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates.
sq
g_____._.....____..---
_3 Lo
=
-4 r
LO N
i N
x 9
?
Lo
=
8 5
u 8
-6 10
$o'
=
c-it'
-7 2-10 1
3
=i sa
_a d
b
=
-9 :
10 i
10 10f 10 *~
10' W
LO*
109 X = TOT /4. COST IN CG.Lles (120)
FIGG E 6.1.4 - 6
.URCEABILITY DISTRIBUTICt4 0F COST CF CFFSITE MITIGATICN IEASURES 710TE : Please see Section 6.1.4.6 tor discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates.
17
6.
1.5 CONCLUSION
S
[MPACTS ARE POTENTIALLY SEVERE BUT HAVE SMALL LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE (A)
HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE (B)
COMPLIANCE WITH hEGULATIONS (C)
PROBABILISTIc RISK ASSESSMENT RISKS COMPARABLE TO N07 MAL OPERATIONS WHEN PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AT SUMMER 9
/7
NUREG-0534 Supplement Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No.1 Docket No. 50-395 South Carolina Electric and Gas Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation November 1980
- ,s....... -
DUPIICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:
ANO JD \\ \\\\bD99 No. of pages: